Preamble

Preamble

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Disabled Persons' Organisations

Hospital Waiting Lists

Nurses (Pay)

Mentally Ill Persons (Out-patient care)

Child Benefit

Mentally Ill Patients (Special Security)

Mentally Handicapped Persons (Residential Care Staff)

Elderly Persons (White Paper)

Pensions

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

TUC

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE MINISTERS' MEETING)

NEW MEMBER

COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

INDICATION OF PRICES (BEDS) ORDER

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

WAYS AND MEANS

INCOME TAX

CORPORATION TAX

FlNANCE

FINANCE BILL

APPROPRIATION

BILL PRESENTED

APPROPRIATION

Orders of the Day — WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL

New Clause 1,

ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT

Clause 2

ENFORCEMENT

Clause 7

FUNCTIONS OF UNIT

Clause 10

POWER TO EXTEND OR TRANSFER UNIT'S FUNCTIONS AND TO ABOLISH UNIT

Clause 16

APPROVED PATTERNS OF EQUIPMENT FOR USE FOR TRADE

Clause 18

BEER AND CIDER

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3

FURTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO CONSTITUTION OF METROLOGICAL CO-ORDINATING UNIT

Orders of the Day — Schedule 5

OTHER AMENDMENTS OF PRINCIPAL ACT

Orders of the Day — Schedule 6

APPLICATION TO NORTHERN IRELAND

LEASEHOLD REFORM BILL

Clause 1

PRICE TO TENANT ON ENFRANCHISEMENT

CARRIAGE BY AIR AND ROAD BILL [Lords]

WAYS AND MEANS

CARRIAGE BY AIR AND ROAD

CARRIAGE BY AIR AND ROAD BILL [Lords]

Clause 7

SHORT TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT

SEA FISHERIES

DIPLOMATIC AND INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

NANTES AIRCRAFT CRASH

Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Preamble

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Sir Alfred Davies Devonshire Broughton, Member for Batley and Morley, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Disabled Persons' Organisations

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent consultations he has had with organisations representing the disabled.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I have frequent meetings with a wide range of organisations of and for disabled people. We consult them as a matter of course about major changes in policy and about proposed new regulations or circulars.

Mr. Marten: How many people are currently receiving mobility allowance? Secondly, what further plans does the Ministry have for supporting Motability? Can he give an assurance that when the cost of motor taxation rises, that will be taken into account in deciding levels of mobility allowance?

Mr. Morris: At the last date for which figures are available about 113,000 people were receiving mobility allowance. A grant of £288,000 was requested towards the administrative costs of Motability in

1979–80. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and the House will be glad to learn that I have been able to approve a sum up to that amount. I can give a definite assurance that changes in taxation will be taken into account in the uprating of the mobility allowance, and also any increase in motoring costs.

Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members appreciate the way that he keeps in close touch with voluntary organisations, but there are too many organisations in some fields that overlap and sometimes conflict? Will he recommend that some of these organiations amalgamate, become more powerful and help the Government to adopt a unified approach to disablement?

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remark, and entirely agree that it would be better for disabled people if more voluntary organisations could think and act together. It is a poor Minister who lacks a strong pressure group. We should have the closest possible co-operation between voluntary organisations.

Mr. Newton: Does the Minister agree that amongst those who have trikes there is a high degree of anxiety about what is to replace them? Has he had consultations with those who run the replacement special vehicle project, and when does he expect to receive and publish the MIRA report on a possible alternative specialised vehicle?

Mr. Morris: I have been in touch with the project to which the hon. Member refers. It may be that we shall need more than one replacement specialised vehicle to meet fully the diversity of mobility needs among the disabled. Everything that the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) and others have said on this important subject will be constantly taken into account.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend consider that hon. Members would like to see a check list published in the Official Report of what has been achieved during his term of office; and will he also publish a list of those things that he has not done? Will he further ask the voluntary organisations to continue their pressure? Only they can influence us to do the things that we should be doing.

Mr. Morris: I have said that the voluntary movement is very important. The Secretary of State is to be congratulated on all the help that he has provided to sustain the voluntary movement in its activities. It would be impossible for me to publish an exhaustive list of new help for disabled people under the present Government. However, I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. He knows that I agree with him, but there is very much more to do in this area if we are to improve the well being and the status of disabled people in contemporary society.

Mrs. Chalker: Does the Minister accept that we agree with him that there is much more to be done in this field, but we feel strongly that this cannot occur until there is some growth in the economy? Will the Minister tell the House what progress has been made in his Department in examining a coherent disability costs allowance for the disabled when the economy improves?

Mr. Morris: In the debate on the report of the Pearson Commission we made it quite clear that we are looking carefully at the possibility of an allowance to help disabled people generally. We have had far too many elites in this area. Growth is desirable in the view of all hon. Members, but if there is any question of reducing public expenditure in my field it will be resisted strongly by the voluntary movement and by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Hospital Waiting Lists

Mr. Raison: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the effects of recent industrial disputes on the length of National Health Service hospital waiting lists.

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the total number on hospital waiting lists in England and Wales in general and in the North-East Thames region, in particular.

Mr. Boscawen: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest available figure for people awaiting admission to National Health Service hospitals.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): I regret that information on the effect on waiting lists of the recent industrial action by ambulancemen and hospital ancillary workers is not yet available. More than 60,000 planned admissions to hospital were cancelled since the start of the dispute, but it is not possible to say from this what the effect on waiting lists will be.

Mr. Raison: Will the Secretary of State accept that the extension of waiting lists has been dreadful? Has he any plans to bring in an emergency scheme to catch up on the waiting lists, perhaps by using Service and independent hospitals?

Mr. Ennals: We have recently had a seminar in which we looked at good practice in the handling of waiting lists, and we shall publish some of the recommendations that have come from that seminar. There is no doubt that the industrial dispute caused serious additions to the waiting lists. However, we must keep this in proportion. It is interesting to compare this with the 1973 ancillary workers dispute. In that year 30,000 beds were out of action compared with only 7,000 in 1979. Also, about 100,000 patients were added to waiting lists in 1973, more than any responsible estimate for 1979, and about 350,000 days were lost through strike action in 1973 compared with fewer than 250,000 in 1979. It is worth while getting the matter in proportion.

Mr. Neubert: Will the Secretary of State answer my question on the Order Paper? With hospital waiting lists rising to a level higher than at any time since the National Health Service was first established, is it not folly to close down wards and hospitals like the highly praised Victoria hospital in my constituency? Will the Minister issue guidance to area health authorities to give greater priority to reducing the numbers awaiting admission to hospital?

Mr. Ennals: The number of people on hospital waiting lists at present is higher than it has ever been. There is no question about that. But we must also recognise that the service provided for patients is at a higher level than ever before. In the first six months of 1978—the latest period for which figures are available—activities increased in comparison with the


first six months of 1977. Discharges and deaths were up by 75,000. Day cases increased by more than 3,000, new outpatients were up by more than 100,000, out-patient attendances increased by nearly half a million, and accident and emergency department attendances were up by more than 64,000. We must compare the level of waiting lists with the standard of service and the amount done for our people through our National Health Service.

Mr. Boscawen: Is it not a matter for shame in a civilised country that nearly three-quarters of a million sick people are awaiting treatment in hospital? Is not the right hon. Member wholly responsible for this? The waiting lists have become worse and worse year after year.

Mr. Ennals: It is quite absurd to say that any one factor is responsible for the lengthening of waiting lists. I do not doubt that the industrial dispute just ended has been an important factor. But over the past years there were never fewer than 400,000 people on our waiting lists since the NHS was started. Waiting lists, as a percentage of the population, have fluctuated between 1·1 per cent. and 1·3 per cent. There are many other factors, including the actual management of waiting lists, that have nothing to do with industrial disputes, that explain why the lists are higher today than ever before. One of the factors is that much more can be done for our patients than has ever been possible before.

Mr. Ioan Evans: What has been the effect on the waiting lists of the latest process by which general practitioners are advised by consultants that NHS patients must wait but that those who pay can get early treatment? Will my right hon. Friend strive to create a National Health Service where the need of the patient is uppermost and not the ability of the patient to pay? Will he resist the demand of the Conservatives to cut public expenditure on the Health Service?

Mr. Ennals: Absolutely. As my hon. Friend knows, there has been a steady increase in expenditure on the NHS in real terms. It has not been as fast as any of us on these Benches would have liked, but I dread to think what the consequences would be if the Conservatives, with all their commitments to cuts in pub-

lie expenditure, were returned to power. My hon. Friend will know that we have now taken the first step to introduce common waiting lists for NHS and private patients for urgent cases and for the seriously ill. I hope that not many months will pass before we can introduce common waiting lists across the whole of our Service. That will be an important achievement.

Dr. Vaughan: Does the Secretary of State recognise that for the first time ever patients needing urgent investigation are on waiting lists? Many of them have to wait months for admission to hospital. How does he explain the fact that, despite the figures that he has given, waiting lists went down under a Conservative Government and have gone up steadily under Socialism?

Mr. Ennals: There have been periods when waiting lists have gone down under Labour Governments just as they have gone down under Conservative Governments. There is no doubt that the figure fluctuates. I draw the hon. Member's attention to a recent publication by the Royal Commission on the National Health Service which looked at the attitude of the public and of patients to waiting lists. This showed that more than one-quarter of the patients interviewed were admitted within two weeks of being told that they would have to go into hospital. Two-thirds were admitted within three months of being told, and four-fifths of patients expressed no distress or inconvenience as a result of the wait for admission. I have no doubt that those who have waited for a long time and have been in pain need and deserve our sympathy, but I say to hon. Members who are picking on this issue that this matter must be kept in proportion.

Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the Conservatives are so impervious to factual data that no matter what he says they will condemn him? Will he also accept that the Tories are so totally committed to massive public expenditure cuts that if they were returned to power the NHS would be the victim of tremendous cuts in every area?

Mr. Ennals: It is clear to me that under the Tories there would be either very substantial reductions in expenditure on the NHS or substantial increases in


charges for seeing general practitioners or specialists or going to hospital. Also there would be great additions to prescription charges which, in my view, would undermine the whole principle on which our National Health Service was created.

Nurses (Pay)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on progress concerning negotiations with National Health Service unions on nurses' pay.

Mr. Ennals: Agreement on a pay settlement was reached at the meeting of the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council held on 27 March. The agreement provided for consolidation of the existing £130 per annum supplement; an increase of 8·8 per cent. on the consolidated pay scales; a reference to the Standing Commission for a comparability study, with the results to be implemented by equal stages on 1 August 1979 and 1 April 1980; and advance payments on account from 1 April 1979, for staff working 35 hours a week or more, of £2·00 per week for unqualified staff, students and pupils, and £2·50 per week for qualified staff.

Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend realise that he is bound to be condemned by the Conservative Party for making this award to the nurses, but will he bear in mind the crocodile tears shed by the Tory Party at the fact that the nurses wanted more money, and set them against the demand by the Tory Party for cuts in public spending? After the interval of the election, will my right hon. Friend when he returns to the House ensure that there is an increase in public expenditure across the board on the National Health Service and ignore the two-faced attitude of the Tory Party?

Mr. Ennals: No doubt the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) is about to leap to his feet to criticise the Government for additional public expenditure incurred in the settlement with the nurses. However, I believe that most people will warmly welcome this agreement. I believe that the nurses richly deserve the pay increases which they will receive immediately and the fuller study of their pay which the Standing Commission is about to undertake.

Nurses have earned great respect for their attitude throughout the weeks of dispute in the National Health Service. Most of the House will share my pleasure in the fact that a satisfactory pay settlement has been reached, and will join me in paying tribute to the dignified and restrained way in which nurses have conducted themselves in recent weeks.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Since the terms announced by the Secretary of State represent the Government's recognition of the nurses' claim to be treated as a special case, why on earth did the nurses have to wait 12 solid months before the Government came round to that point of view? Why did the right hon. Gentleman drive this dignified and honourable profession into demonstrating all over the country? Why did he not respond to the nurses' pledge not to strike before he agreed to treat them as a special case?

Mr. Ennals: The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Government should in the course of the pay year which ended last week have made an additional payment to the nurses. I can well understand how much the nurses would appreciate having had a second payment in the course of one year. But the Labour Government, quite unlike the Opposition, felt that they had a responsibility to the public in the maintenance of pay policy. We thought that the special case sought by the nurses should be properly considered independently by the Standing Commission, which will now take that course. The sanctimonious stuff we have just heard from the right hon. Gentleman comes ill from the Opposition Benches when we remember the way in which the Conservatives have treated nurses' claims over the years. In the last 10 years it has always been a Labour Government who have brought in proper pay for our nurses—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I suppose it is inevitable that on these two days there will be a little more excitement than usual, but this is similar to presiding over a general election meeting. I hope that hon. Members will confine themselves, although I do not expect them to do so, as much as they can to the Order Paper.

Mr. Crawshaw: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this agreement


with the nurses is important so that we may keep faith with them? Many people are prepared to support an incomes policy, whatever political party is in power, provided that it can be shown to be fair. But if it is to be fair, we must take into account not only those on low pay but those who lack industrial muscle, such as the Armed Forces, the police and—because they will not strike—the nurses? Is it not important to see that any pay policy is fair?

Mr. Ennals: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The way in which the Royal College of Nursing established once again that its members were not prepared to take industrial action in support of their pay claim did them and their cause a great deal of good. Also, it is right that nurses should not have to fight every three or four years to catch up with others. That is why we have established a Standing Commission—which will be not just a one-off operation, but which will have the continuing responsibility of ensuring that the standard of nurses' pay is commensurate, not only with responsibility, but with the fact that the nurses are not prepared to take industrial action.

Mentally Ill Persons (Out-patient care)

Mr. Viggers: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement concerning the provision of out-patient care for those suffering from mental illness or disability.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): There has been an overall increase in attendances by mentally ill and mentally handicapped people both at ordinary out-patient clinics and for care at day hospitals. The Government have given and are continuing to give high priority to the development of services for mentally ill and mentally handicapped people and to the change of emphasis from institutional to community care.

Mr. Viggers: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that since the publication of the White Paper in October 1975 on the treatment of the mentally ill, progress can only be described as disappointing? Should it not be the highest priority for the incoming Government in dealing with the social services to divert more resources, and indeed to earn them, for the provision of more hostels for those

who are well enough not to remain in hospital any longer but who are not yet well enough to return to their families?

Mr. Moyle: The precept set out by the hon. Gentleman will be accepted by the Labour Government, but I am sure that it will not be accepted by the Conservative Party, whose members have pledged themselves to cut public expenditure across the board. However, progress in the last couple of years has been reasonable. There has been a 15 per cent. increase in day places for mentally ill adults in NHS hospitals. There has been a decrease in the number of resident inpatients at mental hospitals, brought about because we are switching emphasis to community care. Furthermore, the number of consultants and nurses has risen, and the large mental hospitals have now obtained the minimum standard of one nurse to three patients set in 1972. The picture is good on all sides of the operation, except in respect of local authority day centre places.

Mr. Christopher Price: Could not this change from institutional to community care carry on at a greater pace and be more beneficial to the nation? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the kind of crisis intervention centre set up in the Minister's constituency, which serves a great part of my constituency, could be a model of what we need to develop in this service? Will there not be a tremendous risk if the public expenditure cuts promised by the Tory Front Bench are actually implemented?

Mr. Moyle: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We are aiming at an increase of 9 per cent. per annum on health and personal social services in this respect, and a cut in public expenditure would have a most drastic effect.

Mrs. Knight: May I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the Conservative Party has given a firm commitment not to cut expenditure on health and social services? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] May I also ask whether he has had an opportunity to examine some of the local authority schemes which provide hostel and in-family environment care for the mentally disabled which are almost entirely self-supporting, such as those operating in some parts of the Midlands?

Mr. Moyle: The hon. Lady is a brilliant mathematician if she believes that she can at one and the same time cut public expenditure and increase provision. I shall examine her suggestion. I am now looking at the Birmingham social services department to see whether we should have a public inquiry into it.

Child Benefit

Mr. Ashton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the child benefit allowance or equivalent for a family with three children on 1 April 1974; and what is its equivalent today.

Mr. Ennals: In the 1974–75 tax year, child support for a working family was provided through family allowances and child tax allowances. The cash value of support to a basic rate tax paying family with three children under 11 was then £5·18. The equivalent value at February 1979 prices—the latest month for which the general index of retail prices is available—is £10·20. In cash payments three-child families now receive £12·00 a week tax-free child benefit.
This represents a great improvement in family support—not only for the mother who receives the child benefit but for the whole family income.

Mr. Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the election will be fought and won on the women's vote and that £4 per child to be paid out every Tuesday is not a gimmick but a solid achievement which women appreciate and are grateful to the Government for providing?

Mr. Ennals: That is one of the greatest achievements of this Labour Government. There is no doubt that £12 per week for a woman with three children will have an enormous effect on the way in which she can look after her children and contribute to the family income.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Before the Secretary of State becomes involved in his general election campaign—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is in it."] Will he confirm that in the last general election all the major parties were committed to the introduction of child benefit or equivalent for the first child? If the Labour Party has to become political about the increase

in child benefit it does not have much left in its cupboard.

Mr. Ennals: At the time of the last election all parties were committed to the introduction of child benefit—we happen to be the party that has done it.

Mrs. Castle: While congratulating the Government on an increase in child benefit well above the levels ever asked for by the Conservative Party, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend when the Government intend—on their return to office—to bring the level of child benefit up to that of the dependants' allowance for the unemployed and those on short-term benefit? Will that be introduced in November?

Mr. Ennals: My right hon. Friend knows that the Child Benefit Act 1975 provides that the rates should be reviewed annually, having regard to the national economic situation, the standard of living and other relevant items. No announcement has been made about an increase in November. However, it is a matter which may be touched upon by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he really takes the biscuit for effrontery? Does he not recollect that fateful day in May 1976 when he stood at the Dispatch Box and announced to the House the abandonment of the Government's commitment to child benefit? Does he not recognise that it was because of pressure from the Opposition that proper child benefit was restored? How the right hon. Gentleman has the effrontery to boast about the Government's achievements passes my imagination.

Mr. Ennals: The right hon. Gentleman refers to "taking the biscuit". Indeed, I have never heard so much nonsense in my life. In spite of the economic difficulties that the country has faced, the Government have phased in child benefit fully. That was our pledge. I give a great deal of credit to the working party which was established between the TUC and the Labour Party for helping to bring that about. I can understand the jealousy of the right hon. Gentleman that his party did not introduce it, but he cannot take away from the Labour


Party the fact that it was our achievement.

Mentally Ill Patients (Special Security)

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the administration or section 4 of the National Health Service Act 1977, which seeks to provide for those patients who are detained under the Mental Health Act 1959 and who, in his opinion, require treatment under conditions of special security on account of their dangerous or criminal propensities.

Mr. Moyle: Yes, within the current constraints of the situation. My Department has the difficult task of deciding which people satisfy the stringent tests laid down in section 4 for admission to a special hospital. In order that there shall always be places available when urgent need arises, it is essential that the criteria are strictly maintained. If the hon. Gentleman has a point in mind I should be pleased to consider it.

Mr. Smith: Is the Minister aware that over 300 people are now serving long prison sentences who are, by general agreement, better suited to secure mental institutions? Is he also aware that one of those is my former constituent, Mr. Brian Nordon, who is serving a life sentence? On the recommendation of the trial judge and three leading psychiatrists Mr. Nordon should be in a mental institution. In those circumstances will the Minister do something about it?

Mr. Moyle: There is no general agreement about the number of persons who should be in more secure accommodation, but we are pursuing a programme of regional secure units to take care of those people. The hon. Gentleman is referring to a constituent of his who is serving a sentence of life imprisonment for the manslaughter of his wife. That case has been considered three times on applications for a special hospital bed. Each time, it has been turned down because there is no reason to believe that he is a danger to any particular person or to the public.

Mentally Handicapped Persons (Residential Care Staff)

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if

he will give the numbers of the mental handicap residential care staff for the years 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979, respectively, and if he will make a statement on his plans to increase the staff as recommended by the Jay committee's report.

Mr. Moyle: The number of residential care staff in England was 25,000 in 1976 and, provisionally, 26,500 in 1977, continuing the process of steady increase recorded in earlier years. Figures for 1978 and 1979 are not available. Consultations on the Jay report must be completed before decisions are made. However, it is already Government policy to increase staff numbers as resources permit.

Mr. Wainwright: Does my right hon. Friend realise that, in addition to the 60,000 places in homes for the mentally handicapped, there are many more children whose parents are dedicated to looking after them under difficult circumstances? Those parents fear that when they pass on or the child becomes too unruly there will be no places for those children. What guarantee can be provided for those parents that their children will be looked after when they are no longer capable of doing so?

Mr. Moyle: It is our intention to increase expenditure on health and personal social services for the mentally handicapped by 9 per cent. a year. We intend to secure a network of social service care against the eventualities that concern my hon. Friend.

Mr. Pavitt: In considering his course of action following the Jay committee's report, will my right hon. Friend take special notice of articles by the nurses in both the Nursing Mirror and the Nursing Times in connection with the impact that the report will have upon the nursing profession?

Mr. Moyle: That will be one of our major considerations in the consultations following the publication of the Jay report. The representations made by the nursing professions and the unions will be taken into account.

Elderly Persons (White Paper)

Mr. David Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will publish the proposed White Paper on the elderly.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Stanley Orme): Work is in progress and will be completed as soon as possible.

Mr. Hunt: Does the Minister accept that there is an urgent need to do more to help families to look after the elderly in the home? Does he recognise that there is strong feeling—particularly in my constituency—that it should receive high priority?

Mr. Orme: This Government introduced the invalid care allowance, but I am aware of the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. In response to our document "A Happier Old Age" we have received almost 1,400 comments which will be drawn together and—we hope—published for further discussion.

Mr. Grocott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real problem in providing for the elderly is the lack of co-ordination between the various types of accommodation available? That problem has been made worse by the reorganisation of local government which has separated social services from housing services. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to support the moves being made by Dr. Hewinson and others in Tam-worth to provide a proper co-ordination of facilities for the elderly and a proper allocation to those facilities?

Mr. Orme: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. From the response to our document we are aware that co-ordination is a key factor.

Pensions

Mr. George Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now make a statement on the current shortfall in retirement pension payments when related to earnings.

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received in favour of an increase in pensions.

Mr. Ennals: I wish to give as full a reply as possible to these questions.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated in the debate on 28 March, the Government expect to raise the basic pension rate next November to about £22 for a single person and about £35 for a married couple—that is, an

increase of about £2·50 for a single person and £4 for a married couple. As he made clear, we shall not only raise pensions in line with the forecast movement of prices or earnings up to next November but will take account of the shortfall in last year's forecasts.
We shall of course uprate all the other long-term benefits, including war pensions, widows' benefits and invalidity pensions on the same basis as the retirement pension, and we shall increase the long-term rate supplementary benefit by the same amount as these pensions.
We shall also met our statutory duty to protect short-term benefits, such as unemployment and sickness benefit, against the movement of prices. In doing so, we shall provide for increases that take account of the 1 per cent. shortfall in last year's forecast of prices movement.
The November 1979 uprating will contain two new features. Both earnings-related additional pensions, paid from this month under the new pensions scheme and now worth up to £1·30 a week, and mobility allowance, now worth £10 a week, will be included in the general up-rating for the first time.

Mr. Rodgers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be warmly applauded by every pensioner in this country? Does he agree that the Conservative Party has never supported the principle of linking pensions to increases in earnings? Does that not give a clue about where cuts in public expenditure will be made should the Conservative Party ever come to power?

Mr. Ennals: The increases in cash announced for single and married couple pensioners will be the biggest ever. My right hon. Friend is correct in saying that the Conservatives do not deny that they are committed only to protecting pensions against inflation and not to ensuring a steady rise in the living standards of pensioners. If we had followed Tory commitments rather than Labour commitments in the past five years, married couple pensioners would be £5 a week worse off.

Mr. Madden: Is the Secretary of State aware that he can be forgiven for making a full reply, since some newspapers did not see fit to publish the Prime Minister's statement last week in


which he announced the seventh uprating of pensions since the Government came to power? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the November uprating will result in a real increase in the retirement pension of more than 20 per cent. since 1974? Can he also confirm that, if the linking of pensions to prices or earnings were abolished, it would offer the clear prospect of pensioners' incomes falling very much behind those of other sections of the community?

Mr. Ennals: We included in the 1975 Act a provision that Parliament should have the right, not just to protect pensioners from the rise in the cost of living, but to ensure that they share in rising living standards. We have always believed that that was right and we have followed it in each of the past five years. Pensioners' incomes have increased by 20 per cent. in real terms in the past five years.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, whatever promises may be bandied about in the House, the people of this country realise that the wellbeing of pensioners depends, in the last resort, on the ability of the country to generate the wealth to pay for pensions? Is he aware that pensioners, along with many other deserving groups, will cast their votes on 3 May for the party that they believe will be successful in getting our economy moving again?

Mr. Ennals: The Government are concerned not with promises but with commitments that were established in the 1975 Act. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was about to correct the impression, rightly held by the public, that it is no part of the commitment of the Conservatives to ensure that pensioners share in rising living standards, rather than simply being protected against inflation.

Mr. Rooker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we welcome the announcement that the Government are keeping faith not only with the pensioners, but with their own legislation by making the promise—a promise that the Tories have never made and have failed to make today—that pensions will rise in line with prices or earnings, whichever is the higher? Does my right hon. Friend remember that an Opposition Front Bench spokesman promised before Christ-

mas last year that the Tories would means test the Christmas bonus? Will my right hon. Friend give a firm commitment that that will never be the policy of the Labour Party.

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson), who made that remark during the passage of last year's Bill, is probably making his last appearance in the House today. It is not simply that the Conservative Party has not committed itself to going beyond inflation proofing. Its policy document "The Right Approach" says:
we must do our best to keep the purchasing power of pensions and other long-term benefits in line with prices.
We know from the past what their best is.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Prime Minister, if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): This morning I attended a memorial service for Sir Richard Sykes. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Wilson: In view of the promise made by the Government at the last election that Scotland would get a special share of the oil revenue, what excuse does the Prime Minister have to offer for the fact that, in the past five years, unemployment in Scotland has drastically increased and his proposals in the public expenditure White Paper show that Scotland will get a reduced share of public spending over the next five years?

The Prime Minister: Unemployment in Scotland went up after 1974, but I am glad to say that as a result of Government measures and our success in economic policy, it is going down and has been falling steadily for some time. For example, the number of school leavers out of work has declined substantially. As regards financial aid to Scotland, it is well known that Scotland has enjoyed considerable financial assistance—and the hon. Gentleman's constituency has benefited substantially.

Mr. Watkinson: Has my right hon. Friend noted the view of the City that, in the unlikely event of a Tory victory in the election, cuts in public expenditure will fuel a boom in the price of land and shares? Can my right hon. Friend see any merit in cuts in the social wage in order to fuel a speculators' bonanza?

The Prime Minister: That is clearly one of the issues which will be debated substantially during the next few weeks. However, I do not think that memories are so short that people will have forgotten the property boom that was stimulated during the period of the last Conservative Government and the consequences that flowed from that, especially as the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time allowed the money supply to get uncontrollably high.

Mr. David Atkinson: Will the Prime Minister take time today to go into the Library and read page 505 of volume 6 of the "Collected Works of Marx and Engels" where he will see a list of the 10 preconditions necessary for any country to be ripe for a Communist takeover, seven of which have already been satisfied in this country, largely through his Government's policies? Will he give a pledge to the country and the House that he will support the next Conservative Government in reversing that trend?

The Prime Minister: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting as far as page 505. I wish that his question had shown a more percipient understanding of the erudite conclusions reached by Karl Marx, some of which are apposite in the present state of development of our world.

Mrs. Hayman: Will my right hon. Friend find time to send congratulations to British Aerospace on its part in the new Airbus order announced today? Will he also take the opportunity to reaffirm the Government's support for the civil airframe industry, including the Airbus and the HS 146—support that aircraft workers know only too well would not be forthcoming from a no-grants, no-subsidies, no-interference Conservative Government?

The Prime Minister: It was a decision by the Government to maintain a high-level aircraft industry in which technological achievement should grow. The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lyming-

ton (Mr. Adley), who is interrupting from a sedentary position, was one of those who invited me to spend public money on this matter. It is important to the Government and myself, and, I believe, to the country, that the British aircraft industry should be sustained at a high level. The success of Rolls-Royce in the United States and British Aerospace with the Airbus in Europe are welcome manifestations of that.

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 3 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Hunt: As the Prime Minister has apparently been spending a great deal of time in the last day or two on the preparation of his election strategy, will he let us into the secret of how he proposes to persuade the British electorate that on jobs, prices and taxes, another Labour Government are likely to be any more successful than his failed and discredited Administration?

The Prime Minister: I will also explain to the British people, in the course of the short commercial break we will experience over the next few weeks, that the Conservative Opposition have fought against every effort to save jobs, that they have fought against every attempt to retain the Price Commission and to keep prices down, and that they have shown an irresponsible attitude to pay claims and to pay settlements. In the last few days, they have shown signs, through the speeches of the Shadow Foreign Secretary on the common agricultural policy, on their attitude on old-age pensions and on their attitude towards child benefit this afternoon, of becoming a "Me, too" Opposition. That is what they will remain.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister take time off today from being concerned with the Labour Party manifesto to look at the reports from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, about the incident there? Although we operate a different technology in this country, will he comment on the piecemeal approach to these issues that is pursued in Britain? Is he aware,


for example, that the Secretary of State for Scotland has turned down a public inquiry into the Torness development while, at the same time, an inquiry is going on about the mining of uranium in Orkney for that development and that the same Minister who has to judge that matter is also the Minister responsible for power promotion? Will he try to end this piecemeal approach and secure a wide public and parliamentary debate on these issues?

The Prime Minister: The question of safety in nuclear installations is one that constantly concerns the Government. I have paid a considerable degree of attention to the matter. Last year, the House may recall, the Government placed two further orders for nuclear reactors, both of which were of the advance gas-cooled type—a different type from that found in Harrisburg. I believe that I can safely claim and reassure the public that the incident in Harrisburg could not take place in this country because of the different nature of the reactors. It is important that this should be understood. Indeed, we have been wise to concentrate on the safer advance gas-cooled reactors rather than the pressurised water reactors. Design studies are proceeding for the Harrisburg type of reactor, but we have not so far decided to place any orders for it. In view of the fact that we are to build two more AGRs, it will be two or three years before a decision needs to be reached.
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's point about a piecemeal approach. These matters, including the problem of Torness, are considered carefully in the Cabinet. We try to take decisions that are related to safety on all occasions. We do not always succeed. I apologise to the House for taking so long to reply, but this is a serious and important matter. I think I can say that our record on safety is second to none in these matters. Although there is always the chance of the human element failing, there is no likelihood of an incident similar to that at Harrisburg.

Mr. du Cann: Is the Prime Minister aware that many Members of Parliament on both sides and all the commentators I have read believe that, in the long term, the interests of good administration and the dignity of the House will be best

served if the Government of the day accept the report of the next Boyle Commission on Members' salaries. There is precedent for this action in the helpful decision of this Government and the Leader of the House in relation to the eighth report of the Boyle committee on Members' pensions.
As this is the last opportunity to question the Prime Minister in this Parliament, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to spend time between now and the Dissolution consulting my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition with a view to accepting a firm commitment from the leaders of the main political parties to implement, without equivocation, the Boyle report when it comes, even if, in the interests of general Government policy, the implementation has to be phased, as the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and I have suggested?

The Prime Minister: We must admit that increases in our own salaries are the least popular issues in public estimation, but it should be pointed out that hon. Members have not taken the full increase to which they were entitled under the last Boyle report, and the recommendations have not been implemented. The House has kept strictly within the guidelines on this matter. That point should be made plain.
I have not yet received the Boyle report on its future recommendations. It must be left to the new Government, elected to the new Parliament, to reach conclusions on that report. I would be happy, of course, to have conversations with the Leader of the Opposition, if it was thought appropriate, to see how the issue can be handled.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend give particular attention to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann)? He will be aware that the problem for many hon. Members, particularly younger Members of this House, is serious and is growing in its seriousness.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I hope that my previous answer indicated that I was aware of that. Without giving any pledge on the report, which I have not yet seen, I would certainly be ready to give full consideration to this matter.


Members of Parliament should be remunerated properly, however unpopular it may be.

TUC

Mr. Wrigglesworth: asked the Prime Minister when last he met the Trades Union Congress.

The Prime Minister: I meet representatives of the TUC from time to time at the National Economic Development Council and on other occasions. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will my right hon. Friend consult the northern regional council of the TUC about the future of regional policy and particularly the threat of the Conservative Party to dismantle regional policy should it gain office? Is he aware that an application has been made for special development area status for the whole of the Teesside area? Will he indicate how that application has progressed?

The Prime Minister: I believe a meeting is arranged between Ministers and representatives of Teesside on the question of advancing Teesside to special development area status. The area has received a great deal of assistance during the lifetime of this Government. But if, as my hon. Friend indicates, the policy enunciated by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) were

to be put into effect, Teesside could kiss all that goodbye, and a lot more, too.

Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Prime Minister discuss with the TUC as well as the House the actual level of rate increases which are published today? Is he aware that the forecast by the Secretary of State for the Environment of a level of rate increases in single figures has turned out at something like 19·2 per cent. on average? Whom does he blame for that?

The Prime Minister: No, I shall not be discussing that matter with the TUC. I think it is true that expectations were strong last summer and in the autumn that, if we had stuck to a 5 per cent. increase in pay, the increases in rates would have been much lower than they are. Unfortunately, we did not receive much assistance from the Leader of the Opposition on that matter. I notice that many Conservative councils are now increasing their rates.

Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that his reply just does not hold water? Is he aware that, for example, in inner London the rate increases m Tory councils average 2·6 per cent. and in Labour councils 26 per cent.?

Mr. Skinner: By putting up the rents.

The Prime Minister: Yes, as my hon. Friend says, one can always keep the rates down if one puts the rents up. That is exactly what has happened.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE MINISTERS' MEETING)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the meeting of the Council of Ministers (Agriculture) in Brussels on 29 March, at which I represented the United Kingdom.
I made it clear that any rise in the level of common prices would hurt consumers, swell the scandalous food surpluses and increase the heavy burden which the common agricultural policy imposes on the British economy. Despite opposition from some other member countries, I stated that the Government would in no circumstances agree to increases in common prices for 1979–80. Accordingly, for the time being it was agreed to extend the marketing years due to end on 31 March until 1 July, thus effectively introducing a freeze on common prices for the next three months. The Council also agreed to extend for three months the United Kingdom's current butter subsidy of about 5½p per pound.
The Council also took decisions on a number of important agri-monetary questions. It was agreed to introduce the EEC basket unit for CAP purposes for the period from 9 April to 30 June. The use of this more representative unit should reduce the upward pull on the values of common prices which has hitherto resulted from the use of the "snake" unit of account. If the positive monetary compensatory amounts of strong currencies increase, they will be subject to a reduction or franchise of one percentage point.
Devaluations of the green pound—by 5 per cent, as I had requested—and of the Irish, French and Italian green currencies were also agreed. The devaluation of the green pound will take effect on 9 April for pigmeat, beef, milk products, sugar and isoglucose, and at the begin-of the 1979–80 marketing years for most other commodities. When this devaluation, which is necessary for the wellbeing of British agriculture and to help safeguard employment in our pigmeat processing plants, has eventually worked

through into prices, it is expected to increase the retail price index by about one-fifth of 1 per cent.
The Council formally endorsed the principle that the progressive reduction in existing MCAs can be accelerated at the initiative of the member State concerned. This should remove future changes in the green pound from the bargaining area. Finally, the Council took note of the Commission's intention to put to a vote in the appropriate management committees by 11 April certain reforms in the calculation of monetary compensatory amounts, including revised coefficients for bacon.
The Council also discussed compromise proposals for a common market organisation for potatoes, and some progress was made towards an outcome satisfactory to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Peyton: Is the Minister aware that some of what he said is not unwelcome, but that there are in it some large gaps and that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends regret that, on the last occasion in this Parliament when the Minister addresses us on these important subjects, he has not had a chance to explain himself more fully, and particularly to deal with the gaps? I should like to ask a number of questions.
Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate any further devaluation of the green pound this year? Is he aware that, during his tenure of office, he has not offered much either to consumer or to producer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, come on."] The snakepit is a bit lively this afternoon. I wonder whether—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. As I said to those who were here earlier at Question Time, I know that there is a general air of excitement today, but we must all try to keep to parliamentary standards as long as we are here. I never like addressing any hon. Member in the name of an animal, or whatever a snake is, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) will agree. However, he has the right to be heard, like every other hon. Member.

Mr. Peyton: Mr. Peyton rose—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Peyton: If the sounds coming from the Government Benches below the Gangway so far misled me—

Mr. Corbett: Do not be so childish.

Mr. Peyton: —as to induce me to use an improper term to describe their occupants, I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, and I apologise to you. [Interruption.] It is difficult to make progress.
May I return to my questions? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, during his term of office, for all the noise and fury that he has generated he has not brought home either to consumers or to producers the benefits that Lord Peart managed to do much more silently?
Secondly, we all know that food prices are a subject dear to the right hon. Gentleman's heart. According to his own figures, as a result of our membership of the Community, food prices have risen in this country by 12 per cent. Will he explain how the other 103 per cent. occurred? Was it just the responsibility of himself and his colleagues?
Lastly, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he has not left buried under the carpet of his office many unsolved problems which delicacy or some other emotion has inhibited him from mentioning to the House?

Mr. Silkin: I shall try, in the light of that, to be as indelicate as possible. I am glad to have even a partial welcome from the right hon. Gentleman. That was not the impression that I received from a report of his speech this morning, or from what he said last week. Last week he said that everything had been handed over on a plate and this morning he said that one of the things that he would be fighting for if there were a Conservative Government would be the right to devalue the green pound at any time. It seems to have escaped his notice that I got that right last Friday.
As for devaluations—this is a good starting point—it was essential to get the basis of a country's right to devalue its green currency out of the price fixing. Otherwise, it became a bargaining factor. That is what a number of other countries were trying to make it. That would have meant that we would be unable to proceed with the freeze on common prices. We have managed to get the devaluation of green currencies out of price fixing. That means that we are free to examine the position not only

at price-fixing time but at any time when its suits the national interest.
The figure of 15 per cent. which was urged by the National Farmers' Union would increase support prices by 17·6 per cent. That is excessive. The figure at present is 5 per cent. We shall keep that under review in the national interest. We shall not be forced to wait for the price fixing.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said that I had not done well for the consumer or the producer. It is difficult to look back over the last two and a half years, but I shall try. We have introduced derating for farmers and tax averaging, which has been requested for 35 years, and many times under Conservative Governments. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made some useful concessions to farmers and others in the last Budget and they were appreciated.
We have been involved in an important fight to prevent prices increasing by the appalling levels that they would have increased if we had not so fought. One of the bases was the butter subsidy in the last year of transitional prices. I recall the right hon. Member for Yeovil between the two price-fixing meetings in March and April asking me why on earth I was fighting over this fiddling amount. Those are not his exact words, but that is what he meant. It was worth it to the consumers and it continues to be worth it. It paid for the green pound devaluation.
Food prices have risen by about 110 per cent., 10 per cent. of which is entirely due to CAP prices. There is not the slightest doubt about that. Prices have also gone up in other countries. We are not alone in this.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no dust under my carpet. There is nothing like the common fisheries policy that was left to us, which meant that other countries could fish up to our own beaches. That was what was handed to us.

Mr. Jay: How does my right hon. Friend account for the general belief in Brussels that if a Tory Government were to be elected they would once again surrender all along the line in negotiations?

Mr. Silkin: There are two reasons for that. The first is that the paper "Conservatives in Europe", issued recently, states that the right method of approach in Brussels is to do everybody else a favour and treat that as a bank balance on which to draw when in trouble. Those who have worked in Brussels in the last few years know that that is the last way to operate. It is no wonder that people in Brussels think that the Opposition will be soft in the unlikely event of their coming to power again.
The second reason is that we have said that we shall freeze all food prices this year and that we shall continue to do that for four years until there are no more surpluses. I have heard not a single word from the Opposition about that. They say that they are in favour of freezing prices this year—but they do not say all prices. They have given no indication that they are prepared to freeze prices until surpluses are eliminated.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I welcome the Minister's short-term success in Brussels. Am I right to assume that the other Ministers in Europe will accept a price freeze only for three months? The Minister has the backing of all hon. Members for his price freeze policy.
What are the latest developments involving the co-responsibility levy for dairy farmers in Britain? Does the Minister agree that if we are to increase production from the land of Britain the green pound must be devalued by another 5 per cent. in the next few months?

Mr. Silkin: The basis of the standstill on prices for three months involves the continuation of the co-responsibility levy at its present level of 0·5 per cent. and not the variable level with the exemptions in the Commission's proposals. I had to obtain that agreement from my fellow Ministers. The old basis remains until such time as it is changed.
We also managed to preserve and slightly increase the butter subsidy and to preserve the variable beef premium. My fellow Ministers in Brussels are aware that when I take the fight up again in the first week in May I shall be fighting for a total freeze.

Mr. Michael Stewart: After the performance just now by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), does not the

blood run cold at the prospect, however remote, of his speaking for the United Kingdom in Brussels?

Mr. Silkin: My blood does not run cold, because there is not the slightest possibility of that happening.

Sir David Renton: Is the Minister aware that we should have been sorry for him speaking for the United Kingdom in Brussels but for the fact that he was negotiating from a weakness caused by the failure of the Government's economic policies and that he showed a determination not to try to make the best that he could out of the CAP?

Mr. Silkin: I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman's previous swan song. It is the first swan that I have known to sing its last song twice in a week. We were operating not from weakness but from strength. One of the reasons why the Opposition will lose the election is that they do not listen to what is happening in Europe. For what we are doing we have the support of the overwhelming majority of European consumers.

Mr. George Cunningham: Did not the chairman of the German consumers' organisation say recently that the best spokesman for consumers in Germany and throughout the Community was the British Minister of Agriculture?

Mr. Silkin: He may have said that, but thank God that the whole British Government are there to support me.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his firm attitude in the Common Market is appreciated by many people in Northern Ireland? Is he aware of the disaster that will ensue if the meat industry employment scheme is abolished, and the hardship that that will cause to pig and beef processors in Northern Ireland? Is he further aware of the difficulties that face Northern Ireland farmers as a result of the disparity between the green pound in the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic?

Mr. Silkin: These matters are much in our minds. I thank the hon. Member for-what he said.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has the congratulations and support of the entire British people, especially the housewives? May we have


an assurance that on his return to office after the general election he will pursue a policy to change fundamentally the Common Market agriculture policy on the lines set out in the Labour Party manifesto?

Mr. Silkin: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a vital change in the whole attitude towards the CAP at the summit meeting. We intend to carry this out and we shall ensure that it is carried out.

Mr. Hardy: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the situation today is a great deal better than that which the incoming Labour Administration found in March 1974, when very urgent help had to be given both to the dairy industry and to pig production? In that regard, is not his information today about pig producers extremely welcome? Will he confirm that his efforts in that direction over the last four years have met with hostility from the Conservatives, who have continually complained about his not being a compliant European?

Mr. Silkin: I do not think that the Opposition have mattered very much in discussions at Brussels. Of course, now that a general election is imminent their attitude is something of a difficulty in the conducting of negotiations.

Mr. du Cann: However desirable and, indeed, worthy may be the aims of the CAP—and they are—is it not thoroughly unfair that the British taxpayer and many British producers who have no responsibility for the excesses that that policy creates should be paying so heavily for them? I appreciate the inhibitions that lay on the right hon. Gentleman's shoulders in negotiating in the Council of Ministers immediately before an election, but does the right hon. Gentleman not agree fundamentally that in the end tinkering with the CAP and its financial mechanisms will not do? Does he accept that sooner or later there must be fundamental proposals for its reform? What constructive proposals did he make at Brussels?

Mr. Silkin: Over the many years the right hon. Gentleman and I have agreed on this point, and there is nothing new in his saying it. There is also nothing new in my having said it publicly. The

Government have said it, too. But, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the root of the trouble is the creation of surpluses—of mountains of butter, sugar and cereals—to which the United Kingdom does not contribute in any way. That lies at the root of the CAP and it must be destroyed.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the NFU does not consider that the 5 per cent. devaluation of the green pound will be sufficient? If there is a cash crisis in British agriculture later this year, will the Minister say now that he would personally advocate a further devaluation of the green pound? Does he not agree that one of the best factors for our balance of payments is for British farmers to produce more British food for the British public?

Mr. Silkin: With the second part of that question I entirely agree. I believe in that approach, which is not, incidentally, accepted in Brussels as necessarily correct. The people in Brussels believe it is they who should dictate who produces what. I do not and never have accepted that. As for the devaluation, I remind the hon. Member that there would have been no possibility even to consider it between this price fixing and next year if we had not managed to get the rules altered so that it could be done at any time.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is entitled to the gratitude of the whole country for the valiant and violent solo stand that he made? Will he give an assurance that he will continue to battle for a freeze on common prices until the surpluses are removed? Does he also appreciate that we need him in Europe as a fixture until the CAP is reformed?

Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall pass his words to my right hon Friend the Prime Minister for his consideration when he forms his new Administration on 4 May.

Mr. Peyton: I am sure that the Minister would not want too much to rearrange the facts. Is he aware that every member country always had, until the right hon. Gentleman very nearly lost it, the right to devalue its green currency as and when it suited it? It was only recently, while the right hon. Gentleman was in office and after the House of Commons


voted last year for a 7½ per cent. devaluation, that there was a sudden shift in the rules, which at the time the right hon. Gentleman did not do very much to change.

Mr. Silkin: I am afraid that, as usual, the right hon. Gentleman has it slightly wrong. Commissioner Gundelach said from the moment of taking office that he believed that all green currency changes up or down should be made in the price fixing. He regarded it as being somewhat akin to legislation. Last year he had agreed to an Italian green lira devaluation. We, at the same time, asked for a 5 per cent. green sterling devaluation. We attached it to the proposals of the Italians that were already on the table. Mr. Gundelach said that he was prepared to accept it but that it would be the last time he would allow it before a price fixing. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and some of his hon. Friends changed that 5 per cent. devaluation to 7½ per cent. It was that that the Commission, together with the other countries, said that it could not wear.

Mr. Stoddart: Will my right hon. Friend ignore the surly growls from the Opposition Benches and accept that the British people welcome the stand that he has taken on their behalf in the Council of Ministers? Has he seen today's statement by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) which says that housewives must pay higher prices in the shops if Britain's food industry is to be protected? He goes on to advocate a devaluation of the green pound by 25 per cent. That will increase prices in the shops. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?

Mr. Silkin: I think that the right hon. Member for Yeovil has changed his mind many times about the green pound devaluation. Perhaps the truth is that at this moment he is a little uncertain quite what he wants to do, but if there were to be a full devaluation of the green pound, bringing our prices right up to common prices, the difference for a family of three would be about 60p or 70p a week. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will change his mind again. We shall all welcome it when it happens, although it will not make much difference to Government policy.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Unless hon. Members are much briefer in their questions I shall be unable to call everyone who is standing. There is an enormous amount of business to be completed today.

Mr. Watt: Now that the principle has been established that Governments may reduce the existing MCAs themselves, will the Government look at the policy that my party has long advocated of a gradual reduction, and not a sudden and severe reduction, in MCAs? Will he say when the Council will realise that the CAP will never work? While it is costly to the British taxpayer now, it will be much more costly when Portugal, Spain and Greece join the Market.

Mr. Silkin: That is absolutely right. The CAP is too costly, and it can and will be in any event more costly still unless we take it by the throat now and deal with it. On the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I hope that he has read "Farming and the Nation". He will see that there we speak of moderate devaluations. I agree with him that moderate devaluations at the right time are a much better proposition than very steep ones—say, of 25 per cent.—over a short period.

Mr. Torney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, largely due to the defects of the common agricultural policy, the United Kingdom makes a far greater net contribution to Common Market funds than do other member States? As that is a drag on the British economy, is he able to hold out any hope that basic changes will be made to stop that process when the Labour Government return after the election?

Mr. Silkin: I repeat that the way to stop it is a freeze on common prices for four years. That we are determined to do, and only this Government can do it.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is probably the last time that we shall be able to question him? Does he accept that he has probably left more unsolved problems in British agriculture at home and in the Community than most Ministers? Will he turn his attention to the most damaging of all problems for the


consumer and the producer—namely, the co-responsibility levy, about which he has said nothing?

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman, who normally is fair, was not listening when I talked about the levy in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells). We have opposed the co-responsibility levy and we continue to oppose it. The freeze means that for the next three months, until 1 July, it will run at the old rate. It does not have the exemptions that feature in the new proposals. We shall have to go back and battle for what we want. I promised the hon. Member for Cardigan that I would do so. The levy is bad. I agree with the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills). He says that there are a number of unsolved questions that remain for me to solve after 3 May. I discovered the unsolved problems that the Conservative Government left behind in 1974.

Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) represents a lonely voice in the Conservative ranks, and that by and large the Conservative Opposition represent a soft touch in terms of the Common Market? My right hon. Friend and the Labour Government represent reality, in that they are prepared to undertake determined negotiation, with even an abrasive approach, to ensure that British housewives are not exploited by EEC bureaucrats and the CAP.

Mr. Silkin: Yes. As I look around the Opposition Benches I see at least one hon. Member who holds the same view as the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann).

Mr. Marten: Would not it save an awful lot of time and bother if the whole thing were strangled until it were dead?

Mr. Silkin: That is a nice thought, but I am afraid that the period in which it will be strangled will be about four years. As I have said, it will need a Labour Government to do that.

Mr. McNamaira: When my right hon. Friend was in Brussels, did he draw the attention of other Ministers to the declining consumption of certain basic foods in the United Kingdom that are in enormous surplus in the Community and are being

dumped at subsidised prices outside the Community? Will he identify those foods?

Mr. Silkin: That is a matter to which I referred, and it is something that should be said again and again. The Community is exporting 270,000 tonnes of butter and the world export figure is 500,000 tonnes. That means that more than half is being exported at dumped prices. The Community has the face to criticise us because we continue to take New Zealand butter.

Mr. Charles Morrison: If the right hon. Gentleman has been doing as well as he claims, how does he explain the 100 per cent. increase in food prices that is not attributable to the Common Market? How does he explain the 11 per cent. fall, in real terms, in farming incomes last year, when most other incomes did no worse than stagnate?

Mr. Silkin: I think that the hon. Gentleman has it slightly wrong. Common agricultural policy prices are an additional 10 per cent.

Mr. Jopling: Never.

Mr. Silkin: Yes, they are. They have been subject to exactly the same increase plus an additional 10 per cent. The hon. Gentleman need look only at world prices to realise that that is true. For example, the world price of butter is one-quarter of the common price of butter in the Community.
I have never attempted to disguise a fall of about 11 per cent. in farmers' incomes averaged out over the whole spectrum last year. The Commission talks about a 3 per cent. fall, but I do not accept that figure; I accept 11 per cent. The bulk of that fall, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, lies in the potato sector. That has accounted for the decline.

Mr. Corbett: Against the background of the direct cost of Common Market membership of £100 a year to every family in Britain, does my right hon. Friend accept that he will best serve the interests of the nation if he continues to act as a bulldog rather than a lapdog, as the Conservative Opposition want him to act in Brussels? Has the Council of Ministers made any progress in introducing tighter restrictions on the transport of live animals for slaughter?

Mr. Silkin: I had hoped to refer to the transport of live animals again, but the subject was dismissed and adjourned. I am afraid that we shall not be able to return to it until the next meeting of the Council. It is important, and I hope that we shall be able to make progress.

Sir Timothy Kitson: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many farmers in hill and upland areas have had severe stock losses, as well as heavy increases in food prices for their stock this winter? Will he consider their special situation?

Mr. Silkin: I understand that and I have every sympathy with it. We all know that it has been an appalling winter. The hon. Gentleman referred to one of the factors that we shall need to consider in the next few weeks.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the housewives in my constituency will approve of his linking of subsidies that lead to food mountains with prices, and his clear, unequivocal and firm policy in that regard? Is he aware that they find it nonsensical that the price of skimmed milk has doubled in two and a half years and yet it is being fed to pigs in pigswill?

Mr. Silkin: At the summit meeting my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister drew the attention of his colleagues to surpluses. As my hon. Friend well knows, it is a matter to which we are directing our full attention. That is the whole basis of our policy.

Mr. Tim Smith: If the Common Market is responsible for a food price increase of 10 per cent. and the Government are responsible for a food price increase of 100 per cent., does it not follow that the failures of Britain are due in 10 parts to the Government and one to the Common Market?

Mr. Silkin: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads what I said earlier. His percentages are wrong.

Mr. Hoyle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative Opposition are forelock-tugging towards the Common Market? Does he accept that if they had been in power they would have caved in to the pressure to abolish the Milk Marketing Board, which would

have been a loss to the British housewife and the British farmer?

Mr. Silkin: Judging by their policy in the document that I quoted, which refers to Conservatives in Europe, that is not the only thing on which they would have given way.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in some parts of the Community farmers are doing extremely well but that in others, especially in the south of Italy, parts of France and, indeed, parts of Britain, there is still a serious problem of rural depopulation and farm poverty? Does he recognise that if we want other member States to help us with our industries that have over-capacity we must show some comprehension of the agricultural problems of other member States? Will he now answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who asked him whether he can recall one positive recommendation that he has made as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the reform of the CAP?

Mr. Silkin: I have made several recommendations, starting with the common price itself, which is the most important factor. Secondly, I have asked for the freer import into the Community of commodities from outside—not only New Zealand butter and Lome sugar, but Australian beef and many other products. Thirdly, I have fought for and succeeded in keeping institutions such as the milk marketing boards, which we have had for many years and which have proved successful. Those have been my main policies and those I have carried out.
The hon. Gentleman talked about poor farmers in various areas of the Community. I entirely agree with him. However, these difficulties should be paid for not out of people's food but by national Governments as part of their social policy.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are conflicting views in the House, which is not surprising. Some have shouted "We have had enough". Others are anxious to continue. I propose to call two more hon. Members from the Government side and one from the Opposition side.

Mrs. Wise: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the essential difference for


the taxpayer between the common agricultural policy and our previous system is that we used to use public money to keep food cheap? Now we are compelled to use public money to make food dearer. Does not my right hon. Friend think it is odd that the Opposition do not seem to care about that waste of public money?

Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend has got it quite right. There is one other matter. In the old days we did not have to pay the money across the exchanges.

Mr. Tim Renton: Will the Minister answer the question that he ducked twice? He said earlier that under his Government food prices had gone up by 110 per cent., of which 10 per cent. was due to the CAP. To what was the remainder of the 100 per cent. due, other than the appalling record of this Government on inflation?

Mr. Silkin: Let me try to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] I am answering the question. I have been trying to answer it, but I cannot make it clear to the Opposition. Let me try. The additional or end 10 per cent. is due to the CAP. The 100 per cent. that it shares with the CAP—those prices that have gone up by the same amount—arose in the first instance as a result of the increase in oil prices. The hon. Gentleman may not have been aware of that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A moment ago I said that I would call one hon. Member from the Opposition. I overlooked the fact that I had indicated to an Opposition Front Bench spokesman that I would call him. I shall call him afterwards.

Mr. Watkinson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that dairy farmers are concerned about the massive co-responsibility levy? They welcome the defence that he put up for the dairy industry. Will he confirm that this matter will come before the Council again in three months' time? If that does happen, is my right hon. Friend prepared to protect British dairy farmers by exercising the veto over the extravagant proposals being put forward by the Commission?

Mr. Silkin: I have not the slightest doubt that the co-responsibility levy is extremely bad for the dairy farmers of Britain—and, worse, that it is highly discriminatory. Of course I shall do everything I can to see that that point wins the day.

Mr. Heseltine: Mr. Heseltine rose—

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is generally believed by Government supporters—and, I suspect, by some members of the Opposition—that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who is seeking to put a question, was not present when the statement was made.
I recollect—as I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, do—that in the past you have deprecated the practice of hon. Members seeking to put questions when they have not been in the House to hear the original statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is correct. I always deprecate it if right hon. and hon. Members are not present to hear a statement but still seek to ask a question. However, I am not aware of everyone who is in the Chamber when a statement is made.

Mr. Heseltine: I wonder whether the Minister could explain whether, in his criticisms of the European terms, he sought to criticise the terms that were renegotiated by the Government or to complain of the way in which he has administered those terms since he has been in office?

Mr. Silkin: Neither. The hon. Gentleman, as always, has got hold of totally the wrong end of the stick.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have had notice of two points of order. I ask the hon. Members concerned to leave their points of order until I invite the hon. Member desiring to take his seat to be pleased to come to the Table.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:

David Alton, Esq., for Liverpool, Edge Hill.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret that I must trouble you and the House with this point of order at this time. I do so briefly. It relates to the important matter of the relations between Back Bench Members and Front Bench Members. It is important to raise the matter now. It must be taken account of from the beginning of the next Parliament. I shall do so at this controversial time. No blame attaches to either Front Bench, although it turns out that Front Bench Members have acted illegally, if entirely innocently, for the past 28 years.
Browsing through the Manual of Procedure, I came across article 334, on page 226. It relates to the delegation to the Council of Europe. The delegation to the European Parliament is appointed by a motion of this House, but the delegation to the Council of Europe has been purported to be appointed by successive parties, by the Executive, and not by any motion of the House.
The Manual of Procedure says:
Article 25 of the Statute of the Council of Europe "—
that is, the international treaty that set it up—
signed in 1949, provides that the Consultative Assembly is to consist of representatives of member states elected by the several national Parliaments or appointed in such manner as those Parliaments direct.
A similar but much less accurate version appears on page 847 of that much overrated book"Erskine May". When I read that, I asked the Clerk of the House to do some research and find out when the House was so unwise as to authorise the Executive to make these appointments instead of doing the job itself. When the report came in, it turned out that the House had never done anything of the kind.
It follows that for the last 28 years, under successive parties, and in recent years entirely innocently, because people were doing what was done last time—always a mistake—we have been trying to appoint these delegations. However, they have not been legally appointed. I have to raise the point and leave it like that because it is quite clear in the light

of the facts that in the next Parliament either the delegation to the Council of Europe will have to be appointed by a motion of this House or there will have to be a motion of this House—and I hope the House would not dream of passing such a motion—which permits the Executive to make the appointment.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that although this matter is not one on which you will wish to take the initiative, you will agree that it is important that the rights of this House should be protected, especially when they are enshrined in an international treaty.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice of his point of order. I have to say to him that I believe that he has raised a very important question, but it is not one for me to resolve. He knows that he must pursue the matter with those who are responsible on the Front Bench. It is not a matter for me.

INDICATION OF PRICES (BEDS) ORDER

Mr. Moate: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for raising this matter at this late stage of this Parliament, but I believe that it is something on which a considered ruling from Mr. Speaker would be helpful to the House. As the House knows, under the Price Commission Act of 1977 the Secretary of State is enabled, within three months of the making of a Price Commission report, to make orders and lay them before this House. My point concerns the Indication of Prices (Beds) Order 1978, SI 1716, on which the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments commented in its eleventh report of this Session. That order was made on 29 November, the last possible day open to the Secretary of State. In its report, the Joint Committee concluded that printed copies now being sold, in a corrected form, are not copies of the original order made on 29 November.
The Joint Committee further reported that the withdrawal of the first copy of the order and the laying of a second order, dated 8 December, could be interpreted as an implied revocation of the original order which was made on 29 November. If my first point is correct, it follows that the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection had wrongly certified to this


House, and to the Journal Office, that the document it had deposited was a correct copy of the original order. As is known, a material change had been made to the original order.
This matter could have been put right had the Secretary of State agreed to with-draw that order, but in a parliamentary answer to me he implied that no action was to be taken on this point. He said merely that the comments of the Joint Committee would be noted for future reference.
In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker—I am in no way commenting on the merits of this order—I ask you to give consideration, when convenient, to this order and to the report, and advise on the two questions, namely, whether or not the order was wrongly certified and whether the first order had been revoked by the issuing of a second order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me written notice of his point of order. I can therefore give him a considered reply today. He called attention to the error contained in the copy of the Indication of Prices (Beds) Order, laid on 8 December 1978. This copy replaced, and purported to correct, an earlier copy of the order, laid on 29 November and later withdrawn. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member, has in its eleventh report drawn the special attention of the House

to the instrument and I have inquired into the matter.
It was ruled on 15 May 1946, by Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown, that a copy of an order laid before the House should not only be complete but be correct. The Joint Committee has reported that the copy laid is not a true copy of the order as made. I have considered the Joint Committee's report and I must hold that the copy of the order laid on 8 December was not properly laid.
Accordingly, I rule that the order for the laying of this copy must be discharged and the copy withdrawn. Finally, the hon. Member asked me whether the withdrawal of the first copy and the laying of the second could be interpreted as an implied revocation of the order. This is a matter of law, on which it would not be proper for me to comment

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Resolved,
That, at its rising tomorrow, this House do adjourn till Monday next and that this House shall not adjourn tomorrow until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.— [Mr. Thomas Cox.]

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the intervals between the stages of Bills brought in on Ways and Means Resolutions, any stage of a Bill brought in on such resolutions at this day's sitting may be proceeded with immediately after the conclusion of the preceding stage.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

WAYS AND MEANS

INCOME TAX

Resolved,

That—
(1) Income tax for the year 1979–80 shall be charged at the same rates as for the year 1978–79.
(2) In section 8 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 (personal reliefs)—

(a) in subsection (1)(a) (married) for ' £1,535 ' there shall be substituted '£1,675';
(b) in subsection (1)(b)(single) and (2) (wife's earned income relief) for '£985' there shall be substituted '£1,075';
(c) in subsection (1A) (age allowance) for '£2,075' and '£1,300' there shall be substituted '£2,265' and '£1,420' respectively;
(d) in subsection (1B) (income limit for age allowance) for '£4,000' there shall be substituted ' £4,400';

and in section 14(2) and (3) of that Act (additional relief for widows and others in respect of children) for '£550' there shall be substituted '£600'.
(3) Neither paragraph (2) above nor section 22(2) or (3) of the Finance Act 1977 shall require any change to be made in the amounts deductible or repayable under section 204 of the said Act of 1970 (pay as you earn) before 1st August 1979.
(4) No relief shall be given under section 10 of the said Act of 1970 (child tax allowances) for the year 1979–80 or any subsequent year of assessment except in the case of a child to whom sections 25 or 26 of the said Act of 1977 applies.
(5) In paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 1 to the Finance Act 1974 (limit on relief for interest on certain loans for the purchase or improvement of land) the references to £25,000 shall

have effect for the year 1979–80 as well as for previous years of assessment—[Mr. Joel Barnett.]

CORPORATION TAX

Motion made, and Question,

That—
(1) Corporation tax shall be charged for the financial year 1978 at the same rate as for the financial year 1977; and the small companies rate and the fraction mentioned in section 95(2) of the Finance Act 1972 (marginal relief for small companies) shall also be the same for the financial year 1978 as for the financial year 1977.
(2) The rate of advance corporation tax for the financial year 1979 shall be the same as for the financial year 1978.—[Mr. Joel Barnett.]

put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Joel Barnett, Mr. Denzil Davies, Mr. Harold Lever and Mr. Sheldon.

FlNANCE

Bill to continue income tax and corporation tax at the existing rates; to increase the main personal reliefs from income tax; to withdraw child tax allowances; and to continue the limit on relief for interest imposed by paragraph 5 of schedule 1 to the Finance Act 1974, presented accordingly, and read the First time; and ordered to be printed. [Bill 133.]

FINANCE BILL

4.26 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I confess that I feel a little bit like a man who turns up to play the leading role in the opera and all they want him to do is to help them hold the scenery together. I hope that nobody will blame me if I sing sedately at my work.
The Finance Bill now before the House is very different from that which would have reflected the Budget I had completed a week ago. It is introduced simply to maintain the ability of the next Government to introduce a Budget of their own choosing by preserving the basic powers of taxation as Parliament has already laid them down.
The economic background of this Bill is of course the same as that for the Bill I originally planned to introduce—namely, the state of the economy in the past year and the prospects for the year ahead— and I doubt if that background will have changed very much if the next Government decide to introduce a Budget in the summer. It may be convenient to the House if I briefly sketch it now.
1978 was a good year for the United Kingdom economy. We halved our rate of inflation, bringing it below the OECD average last spring and keeping it in single figures ever since. It is still below the level in the United States and France. Over 1978 as a whole, disposable incomes were 6·4 per cent, higher than in 1977 and 3·6 per cent, higher than in the previous peak year of 1974. Domestic demand expanded rapidly, private manufacturing investment increased in volume by 14 per cent for the second year running—to the highest level since 1970—and GDP rose by 3 per cent. As a result, we brought unemployment down by more than 100,000. After two bad months of winter and industrial disruption, unemployment is falling again.
Externally, we achieved a £250 million current account surplus, in spite of the fact that the extra net help we got from North Sea oil was to a great extent offset by a fall in invisible earnings, largely due to an increase in our contributions to

the European Community budget—something we are determined to correct in future.
In addition, we were able to repay 4·6 billion dollars of overseas debt—3·6 billion dollars ahead of schedule—as against new borrowing of 1·8 billion dollars. This was in accordance with the intention I expressed last year of combining net repayment of debt, year by year, with new borrowing to spread the maturities. We have continued with this policy in 1979.
As I have told the House in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), I propose shortly to repay a further 1 billion dollars to the IMF well ahead of schedule. We shall then have repaid to the IMF the equivalent of all our 1976 standby drawings and all the amounts we drew under the four credit tranches. This will be in addition to early repayments of market debt of up to 2 billion dollars in 1979.
Against this encouraging background we could look forward last autumn to a stable rate of inflation during 1979 and a further period of reasonable growth with the current account remaining close to balance. But we still face two major problems in our domestic economy, one of which became more serious in the winter months.
The first problem is the sluggish response of our manufacturing industry to increases in demand. As a result of the fall in inflation and the tax reductions that I announced in October 1977 and in last April's Budget, consumer spending increased by 5½ per cent, in 1978. But manufacturing output rose by less than 1 per cent., so imports inevitably gained an increased share of the United Kingdom market.
The second problem is wage inflation. As the current pay round has progressed, it has become clear that, as a result of excessive pay settlements, the rate of inflation in 1979 will be higher than we forecast last autumn. The earnings outturn for 1978–79 will be nothing like as high as the 20 per cent, to 25 per cent, which some commentators were predicting a couple of months ago. There is now a good chance of our achieving an outturn of about 13 per cent.—a little less than the last round. We have had a


much larger number of people making settlements than by the same time last year.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Will the Chancellor give way?

Mr. Healey: No. But any increase above the Government's guidelines is bound to raise prices and damage our competitiveness.

Mr. Ridley: I thank the Chancellor for giving way. If the rate of wage increases is going to be a little lower than last year, why is the rate of inflation going to be quite a lot higher than last year?

Mr. Healey: There are many reasons. One is that the rate of wage increase last year was higher than the Government had hoped for when they laid down their guidelines in 1977. Another reason is that, whereas last year we benefited from a very small increase in world prices and no increase in oil prices, this year we are likely to get an increase in oil prices very much greater than was planned by the OPEC countries even a short time ago. I shall have more to say about that later.

Mr. Ridley: Mr. Ridleyrose——

Mr. Healey: I have answered the hon. Gentleman very fully. I have given him all the facts and he must mull over them.
As I said, any increase above the Government's guidelines is bound to raise prices and damage our competitiveness. Although, by sticking to the fiscal and montary policies that the Government have pursued, these dangers can be limited, nevertheless output and employment will be lower than they would have been if the pay guidelines had been observed. The solution to this problem—the main domestic cause of accelerating inflation—lies in our own hands. The Government and the TUC have already declared their determination to resolve it. But we face other difficulties on a broader international scale that we cannot solve by ourselves.
This time last year I stressed that, in order to find a solution to our own difficulties, action was needed on a world scale and I looked forward to the Bonn summit in July as a key element in any

concerted approach to the world's major economic problems. The sniggering by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) is not justified by the outturn of the Bonn summit.
In the months before the summit we pressed our international partners very hard on the need to sustain the rate of world growth and to reduce the current account imbalances. Our efforts were rewarded. The commitments undertaken at Bonn have been carried out, and 1978 ended with world growth and trade rising rapidly. We must continue our efforts to sustain world growth and achieve a better balance in the world economy at the Tokyo summit in June.
The European Community has committed itself to work towards greater convergence of economic performance and living standards, and it has the machinery through which this can be achieved. But its progress in this area has been most disappointing. I have already referred to the heavy burden placed upon us by our net contributions to the EEC budget. In 1978 these amounted to around £800 million. The Prime Minister has already made it clear that the Government regard it as intolerably perverse that the United Kingdom, which is seventh in order of GNP per head in the Community, should be the largest net contributor to the budget. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has argued in the Agriculture Council, as he told us again this afternoon, for an end to the wasteful surpluses created by the common agricultural policy which are one of the major causes of the present inequitable resource transfers.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is time that we got out.

Mr. Healey: I, too, have taken the opportunity of meetings with my Finance Minister colleagues to emphasise that this perversity must be corrected if the European economies are to converge. There are signs that some of our partners are beginning to recognise the justice of our case. When we are returned to power, we shall continue to press this issue until we achieve results.
Thus, despite the success of the Bonn summit, current account imbalances have by no means disappeared, and there are also wide disparities in inflation rates round an average which is anyway much too high. Although the world economy


grew by almost 4 per cent. in 1978, this was insufficient to reduce unemployment which, for the past three years, has stuck stubbornly at 16 million for the OECD area as a whole.
Yet there is widespread fear that more expansionary policies would simply rekindle inflation instead of leading to sustainable growth. This fear affects not only the United Kingdom but all our major partners. It is such fear, for instance, that led the United States last year to adopt a more restrictive stance. As inflation started to rise, the external deficit widened, and the dollar weakened. So in 1979 growth in the industrial countries is likely to be around only 3 per cent.—almost 1 per cent, lower than last year—and unemployment will remain high.
The recent oil price increases and the uncertain prospects for oil supply following events in Iran add to these difficulties by further increasing inflation and reducing the prospects for world growth. In consequence, we must all now give a high priority to saving oil so as to take pressure off the oil markets, and we must meet the commitment agreed with the International Energy Agency to reduce oil consumption by 5 per cent. Second, until we can secure together a lasting fall in inflation, we are unlikely to achieve the rates of growth which we need to get unemployment down.
I have no doubt that for us in Britain, as for most of our partners, the defeat of inflation must remain the highest priority if we wish to reduce unemployment. This must be tackled on two fronts—by continued adherence to firm and responsible financial policies and by a moderate growth in earnings over the year ahead.
Our domestic and external financial policies have formed the foundation of our counter-inflation strategy. Externally, over the last two years the £ sterling has remained strong and relatively stable. This has helped to contain the effects of pay increases on the rate of inflation. We have proved our ability to maintain the effective stability of sterling. Our reserves now stand at $22 billion, or $17½billion on the old valuation, compared with $6½ billion at the end of 1973.
Domestically, we have succeeded in keeping the underlying growth of the

money supply under control. It will be another six weeks before we know the outcome for the year ending on the April make-up day. But the indications are that the rate of growth of sterling M3 over the year as a whole has been in the middle of the target range which I set in my last Budget. There are very few other countries which can claim as much this year.
The present target relates to the year to mid-October 1979. So far, we have been above that range but, thanks to recent gilt sales, we should see the outcome for the first half of that year close to the top of the range. Recent sales of part—paid gilts have secured a good start to funding the PSBR in the first month of the next banking year. It would not be appropriate for me to propose a change in the target range today or to roll it forward. In any case, if it were raised significantly at this juncture above the existing 8 to 12 per cent, range, this would simply mean printing money to finance the higher pay settlements of the current pay round. That would be the road to still higher inflation. On the other hand, if it were lowered, it would depress the economy more than is justified by the prospects for pay and prices, and that would be the road to recession.
The monetary authorities will continue to act during the coming month to keep the underlying growth of sterling M3 within the target range. For example, the Bank of England will announce this afternoon the detailed arrangements I have approved as a holding operation for rolling forward the supplementary special deposit scheme for three months on a basis consistent with that target.
An important element in achieving control of the money supply in the last year has been our success in holding the PSBR in 1978–79 close to the Budget estimate of £8½ billion. As the House knows, I have already committed myself to preventing the PSBR in 1979–80 from rising above that figure. Holding the PSBR at this level in money terms, and so reducing it as a proportion of money GDP, will ease the financing task in the coming year and allow adequate room for finance for industry. But I recognise that the parliamentary Opposition might prefer to reduce the PSBR below £8½ billion this year and to adopt a lower monetary


target. Nothing in this Finance Bill will prevent them from doing so if they find themselves responsible for our economic affairs after the forthcoming election.
I come now to the coverage of the Finance Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to enable the tax regime to continue on its present basis during the period when Parliament is dissolved. It follows discussions which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and I have had with the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) and his colleagues and is intended to ensure that, so far as circumstances allow, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the incoming Government, whoever he may be, will be faced with the same scope for tax changes in his Budget as would have been available to me had I been standing here in rather different circumstances.
As the House knows, some of our taxes—income tax, corporation tax and advance corporation tax—have to be imposed each year. Under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, income tax can be collected until 5 May on the basis of the law prevailing in the tax year now ending, but there is no power to continue its collection beyond that date. Similar provisions relate to corporation tax and advance corporation tax. Hence, the first and foremost purpose of the Finance Bill is to renew these annual taxes at the rates in force over the last 12 months.
However, it has been necessary to go a little further than that. In renewing the income tax, we have had to take account of the indexation provisions to be found in section 22 of the Finance Act 1977—the so-called Rooker-Wise amendment, which we owe to my hon. Friends. These require that, unless the House decides otherwise by affirmative order, the main personal allowances—that is, the single allowance and the wife's earned income relief, the married allowance, the age allowances and the additional personal allowance which, broadly, is given to single parents—should be revalorised each year in line with the increase in the retail price index over the previous calendar year. I have no intention of asking the House to lay aside the Rooker-Wise amendment this year. Indeed, if I had been able to introduce a normal Budget, I would have proposed an increase in income tax thresholds higher than envisaged

in section 22 of the Finance Act. Parliament has decided that these increases in the allowances should be made, and hence it seems right that any continuation of the income tax in this caretaker Budget should fully reflect that fact. This is, indeed, the effect of the law, although the actual figures to which the allowances would be increased under the indexation provision are not precisely specified. Moreover, there could be some confusion if the indexed allowances took immediate effect and were then changed a second time by the new Chancellor.
There was more than one way open to us of dealing with this situation, but the solution we have adopted is to lay down in the Finance Bill new figures for the main personal allowances which correspond—subject to rounding adjustments upwards—to the figures which are required under the indexation provisions. The percentage increase required under the latter—that is to say, the increase in the retail price index for the calendar year 1978—was 8·9 per cent., but because of the rounding adjustments the actual increase in the allowances proposed in the Bill is just over 9 per cent. However, we have also provided that no changes should be made in the amounts of tax due under PAYE until 1 August 1979. The purpose of this is to give the next Chancellor time to decide what he wishes to propose to the House before pay packets are affected. By this means we shall have made clear what the revalorised allowances should be, and we have ensured that no one can proceed against the Inland Revenue for failure to implement what is a statutory responsibility. But we have done so in such a way as to give rise to no party advantage.
I wish to stress that, if the next Govern-men secured the agreement of the new House not to implement the Rooker-Wise amendment, the increases in allowances now set out would never actually be implemented and they would not be reflected in pay packets. They will not take effect before or during the election campaign, and they will only take effect after the election if they remain unchanged by any Budget introduced thereafter. On the other hand, if the next Government wish to maintain or increase them, they will be able to do so within weeks of introducing their Budget, without waiting for 1 August—and in that


case they will, of course, be backdated to 6 April.
I now turn to the child tax allowances. The House will recall that these allowances have been progressively reduced over the last two years at the same time as child benefit was introduced and increased. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary announced last July that proposals would be included in this year's Finance Bill for the final abolition of these allowances, apart from non-resident children and the purely transitional provisions for certain students. Moreover—and here again I must salute the efforts of one of the Government's supporters, in this case my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham)—the present arrangements for the allowances have been made only on a year-by-year basis. Hence, if no provisions were to be made in this Bill for the child allowances, they would revert to the level at which they were last fixed permanently, that is to say, the level for 1975–76—at a cost of well over £1 billion in a full year. Accordingly, in order to remove any uncertainty, and to ensure that no one can seek to get his allowance restored, the Bill provides for the removal of the allowances, along the lines which my right hon. Friend originally announced, to take place simultaneously with the increase of £1 in child benefits for each child.
The Inland Revenue has already prepared the 1979–80 PAYE code numbers on the basis that the House would approve the proposals in my right hon. Friend's announcement. Hence, the deductions which family men will find in their pay packets next week will reflect the loss of the allowances. At the same time, however, child benefit is being increased to £4 per week, and for over 90 per cent, of families the increase in the child benefit will be greater than the effect of the loss of child tax allowances. Indeed, if account is taken also of the 70p advance payment of child benefit made last November, more than 99 families out of 100 entitled to child benefit will see their incomes increased as a result.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: We all fully appreciate the increase in the child benefit to £4, but, in view of the fact that my right hon. Friend is now

proposing to continue the indexation of personal allowances and cannot do anything about the child tax allowances, can he tell the House what proposals he had—I hope still has—for a further increase in child benefit next November?

Mr. Healey: What I can tell the House is that the Government had planned a further increase in the child benefit next November. There is great advantage, incidentally, in increasing the child benefit at the same time as most other benefits are increased in the year. However, I do not think that it would be right to tell the House on this occasion precisely by how much child benefit would be increased in November. That is still a matter for consideration.
Finally, the Finance Bill provides for the continuation for another year of the ceiling on mortgage interest relief at £25,000. No change of policy is implied here, and it will be open to the next Chancellor to propose that the figure be varied if he considers that desirable.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): Not so much of "the next Chancellor". My right hon. Friend may have to do it himself.

Mr. Healey: I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister will give me the order of release after the next general election, if it is his will. If it is the Prime Minister's will that I should continue to carry this heavy burden, this poisoned chalice, for the benefit of the nation, I shall have no hesitation whatever in doing so.
This, then, is a caretaker Finance Bill. It provides what is essential in order to ensure that our tax affairs are carried on in an orderly manner while Parliament is dissolved and ensures that the next Chancellor—who might well be myself—will be able to consider his Budget proposals against a backcloth essentially similar to that against which, in other circumstances, I might have been producing a normal but such an extraordinarily wise and prudent Budget today.

4.53 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Chancellor of the Exchequer must have been looking forward to the opportunity today of beating one of the many horrendous records that he has been able to beat in his five years at the Treasury


by introducing his fifteenth Budget. Speaking for the Opposition, I can express our total pleasure at the fact that the defeat of the Government in last week's vote of no confidence has turned this from a fifteenth Budget to a total non-Budget, as is inevitable.
The Chancellor presented himself a little more engagingly than usual, purporting to be a stagehand at an opera. My picture of him is rather closer to him arriving to sing the requiem at his own funeral.

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to do better than that.

Sir G. Howe: Indeed, if I may express a typical Welsh observation upon this funeral, we frequently comment on these occasions saying "Oh, indeed, it was a lovely funeral". Therefore, we celebrate the Chancellor's demise today with great enthusiasm.
Even so, we were warned to have high expectations by an article which appeared in yesterday's edition of the Financial Times where it was said that Labour Benchers
are hoping that Mr. Denis Healey, the Chancellor, will use the debate on the Bill as an opportunity to parade the Government's economic achievements and to point out what voters will miss as a result of him not being able to go ahead with the Budget e had planned.
His performance has not quite lived up to those high expectations. We are not surprised that he could not altogether resist the temptation to begin to say something about his achievements during his five years in the Treasury.
The House is all too familiar with the Chancellor's dismal record. If one takes account of the fact that in the past five years the Government have faced identical international circumstances, as have all our major competitors, but with the unique and massive benefit of North Sea oil added to their hand, it is lamentable that Britain's general economic performance in the past five years while the Chancellor has been at the Treasury has been worse than that of any other major industrial country.
The Chancellor was fleetingly able to retain the proposition that price inflation was still in single figures—but only just.
Another week or month and that vision would soon have disappeared. The reality is that prices have risen during the past five years in Britain more than in any other competitor country, except Italy. Judged by his own standard of 8·4 per cent, on the three-month price increase rate with which he sought to delude people at the last election, the latest figures show that prices in Britain are now rising at an annual rate of 13·3 per cent.
Unemployment in Britain has risen faster than in any similar country except France and it is higher than in any other country except Canada. On manufacturing output, the Chancellor was good enough to concede that performance had been sluggish but he used a revealing phrase because he denounced manufacturing industry, in effect, for being sluggish to respond to a growth in demand instead of recognising that the shortcomings of our manufacturing industries are due to the extent to which the Chancellor and his policies have discouraged and deterred enterprise and investment on the supply side. That is perhaps the most astonishing part of his record—that manufacturing output is still more than 4 per cent, below what it was five years ago
The Chancellor sought to take credit for the strength of sterling and for the strength of the balance of payments, but he did so in a characteristic way. He was not reluctant to blame the European Communities for shortcomings on the balance of payments but was most reluctant to give any credit to North Sea oil for such achievement as there has been. The House should be under no illusions about the fact that the strength of sterling is entirely due to the strength that North Sea oil and North Sea gas have contributed to our economy and not in the least to the strength of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The balance of payments, looked at over a proper period, over the five years to the end of last year, was in a deficit of £5·3 billion despite the contribution from North Sea oil and gas of almost £10 billion. That is the reason for the balance of payments being in narrow balance. For the Chancellor, in his swan song, to complain about the intolerably perverse effects of the European Community budget and the extent to which this Government are being required to make contributions beyond what is reasonable, may


well leave room for discussion. But it is not for the Chancellor to complain about that, because the arrangements of which he now complains are the arrangements that he and the Prime Minister renegotiated.
Turning to the Finance Bill, it is, in many ways, a remarkably fitting epitaph for the Chancellor's taxation policy over the past five years. Corporation tax is continued at 52p as against 50p when he took office in 1974. The standard rate of income tax will continue at 33p in the pound, compared with 30p when he took office in 1974—and had he had his way last year it would have been not 33p in the pound but still 34p in the pound. It is thanks to the Opposition that 1p was knocked off the standard rate of income tax.
In other respects it should be noted that the effect of the Finance Bill is, in many senses, to increase the real burden of direct taxation because a number of allowances will not be changed to take account of inflation over the last 12 months. For example, the mortgage interest relief provision will continue as it was last year, in order to maintain the status quo, at £25,000 maximum. Stamp duty will continue to operate from a minimum figure of £15,000. All these things are continuations of a pattern which the Chancellor has not changed over the past five years, and they represent a continuing increase in the real burden of taxation.
There are two quite interesting examples that should be noted. Because the Rooker-Wise amendment applies only to personal allowances, on this Finance Bill the reduced rate band in the year ahead remains at £750 and it should have been increased by £60 in order to prevent an increase in the burden of taxation. The highest rate tax threshold remains, of course, on these provisions at £8,000, and that also should have been increased by £700 to take account of inflation. This Bill is no more than a holding operation, and the effect is to increase the burden of direct taxation on almost everybody.

Mr. Healey: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to mislead the House, but he has done so very gravely. Today the Revenue is publishing the usual tables, which include

the impact of the withdrawal of child tax allowances and the increase in the ceiling for national insurance contributions. That shows that there are increases in income resulting from the provisions of this Bill—up to 4 per cent, from about ½ per cent. The House will be able to study these tables at its leisure, and will see that the statement that has been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, no doubt in error, is a fiction.

Sir G. Howe: The Chancellor should not attribute error to me. Of course, there is a change in the money rate of taxation following from a change in the personal allowances. But the Chancellor knows perfectly well that if this were the only change to be made in this Finance Bill and the Budget of this year the real burden of taxation would increase. I have given two reasons which are perfectly clear. The reduced rate band of £750 should be enlarged by about £60 to take account of its erosion by inflation. The higher rate threshold should be enlarged from £8,000 to £8,700. Unless those things are done, the real burden of taxation will be increased if this is the only Finance Bill we get.
Of course, it will be diminished in so far as the Rooker-Wise provisions make some impact, but the total pattern is in line with the performance of the Chancellor and this Government over the last five years. In 1973–74, the total taxation per household in this country was £389, and in the year that we are just finishing it is £939—an increase of two and a half times on each household in this country. Merely to get back to the level of personal taxation which operated in the last year of the Conservative Government would require a reduction in personal taxation of about £2,000 million beyond that proposed in this Finance Bill.
The change in personal allowances which is provided for by the Rooker-Wise amendment goes no further than the obligation which this Parliament imposed upon the Chancellor when that amendment was made. Even that does not go anything like far enough to increase personal allowances to the levels that were operating in 1973–74. The proposal in this Bill is for a single personal allowance of £1,075. To get that back to its real value at the time of the last Conservative Government, it should go up to £1,340. Under this Bill, the marriage allowance


is fixed at £1,675. To get that back to its real value at the time of the last Conservative Government, it should go up to £1,745.
Of course, this Bill makes no change whatever, because it is only a standstill Bill, in the level at which people begin paying investment income surcharge. There we see one of the most shameful monuments of all of this Chancellor's record at the Treasury. Had the starting point for tax on savings income been raised in line with prices in order to leave it where it was left by my noble Friend Lord Barber, one should not now begin paying that tax on savings income until one attained a savings income of £4,500 a year. But under this Government and this Chancellor even people who have retired begin paying that investment income surcharge on an investment income of £2,500. That is one of the most shameful things of all about the Chancellor's record. [Laughter.] I do not know what the Chancellor thinks there is to laugh about. He should know, and take note, that no burden of taxation is more widely resented than investment income surcharge on the income which comes to people after a lifetime of thrift.
The Chancellor should acknowledge one other thing. Even the modest abatement in the burden of real taxation contained in the Bill is not there thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his fellow Treasury Ministers. It is there, quite rightly, because this House of Commons imposed an indexation obligation upon the Chancellor, unless he was prepared to ask the House of Commons to overrule it. In fact, it is there over the dead bodies of the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary and their fellow Treasury Ministers. It is rightly associated in its name—the Rooker-Wise label—with the hon. Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise). Much though we have enjoyed some of their contributions to our proceedings, we look forward to the next Parliament being convened without either of them being present.
The two hon. Members have one remarkable achievement to their credit. So far as I know, it is very unusual to have any legislative provision in our

Parliament bearing the label of a given Member of Parliament around its neck. I have not found any that has the twin label of such a well-matched pair, or indeed any pair. The area of precedent into which we are moving is that with which the American legislature is much more familiar. For example, we often talk about the Taft-Hartley Act. It will be nice for the hon. Members for Coventry, South-West and Perry Barr, as they languish outside this House in years ahead, to reflect that Rooker-Wise will take its place alongside Taft-Hartley in the legislative history of the English-speaking world.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman getting somewhat confused, because Taft-Hartley put burdens on to the working people of America, whereas Rooker-Wise actually eases the burdens?

Sir G. Howe: I am not prepared to reopen the debate about Taft-Hartley with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). There are many people who would think that that legislation lifted substantial burdens from the people of America which they are well without. However, I am trying to pay a tribute to his two hon. Friends. We do not begrudge them the linking of their names with this amendment, but they should acknowledge that the real credit for its enactment goes to the Conservative Party, because, of the 19 votes that were cast in favour of the Rooker-Wise amendment, 16 were cast by Conservative Members. A modest contribution was, of course, made by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), whom I see in his place glinting with pride for the last time.

Mr. John Pardoe: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman want to bet?

Sir G. Howe: In many senses the real leadership came from my ever effervescent hon. Friend, as the Chancellor has noticed on many occasions, the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). Perhaps the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West might consider even at this late stage a change in the name of the provision, if not to Lawson-Rooker-Wise, at least to Rooker-Wise-Lawson.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should acknowledge that the contribution of his hon. Friend was to dilute the orginal Rooker-Wise amendment. Had it remained in its pure form it would have left no opportunity for any forthcoming Chancellor to evade this provision. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) weakened it rather than strengthened it.

Sir G. Howe: My hon. Friend was anxious to make it in a form that was at least to some extent acceptable to the hon. Lady's right hon. Friends, thereby to prevent its being eliminated at a later stage of the proceedings.

Mr. Pardoe: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that the reason why American legislation is studded with the names of legislators is that the American legislature controls the Executive? It has only been in this Parliament that the legislature has controlled the Executive. The only way in which we shall be able to have more Rooker-Wise or Taft-Hartley amendments is if there is a balance of power at the next election and no single party controls with an overall majority.

Sir G. Howe: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has an intense interest in reproducing such a precarious balance. I can assure him that he will not be able to look forward to such an existence again. The legislature will certainly control the Executive in the next Parliament, but the Executive will be a Conservative Executive, sustained and controlled by an overwhelming Conservative majority.
I turn briefly to the point on which the Chancellor slightly disappointed the House. It was said that he would be pointing out what the voters will miss. I understand the great expectations of Labour Members. After all, when the Chancellor last introduced a Budget within weeks of an election—in July 1974—he was then able miraculously to lower VAT to 8 per cent., to double regional employment premium and to distribute goodies in all directions, only to reverse every one of those actions on a much larger scale as soon as he had deceived the people.
When the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer in March 1966,

he was able to play the same game and was able to tell the people through the House of Commons that he saw no need for any significant increase in taxation after the election. Thereafter, having won the election on that false platform, he proceeded to increase taxes substantially and introduced selective employment tax.
We should remember why the Chancellor has disappointed expectations so much. He has well in mind the threats and forecasts that he was making in the last economic debate which we had in the House in January, when he was saying that if public sector pay was to increase significantly over the Government's former target he would have to do two things: either to begin cutting back public expenditure, or to begin increasing taxes—or to begin doing both. Plainly that was an accurate forecast.
If the present Government remained in office, this Bill would be only one very modest part of the economic policies which the next Chancellor would have to introduce, were he a Labour Chancellor. I am not surprised that the Chancellor manifests an obvious reluctance to continue in his role if his party were to win the next election, because he will be leaving a dreadful inheritance for the next Chancellor, from whatever party he may come.
The Bill as it stands clearly provides for an increase in the PSBR of about £1 billion, because that is the cost of Rooker-Wise. Cash limits have not been changed to take account of pay settlements, in respect of which the Government are now busy signing cheques that look suspiciously blank, to be picked up by the next Chancellor of the Exchequer. But if in fact public sector expenditure and public sector pay behave in the central Government area as they have done in local government, people should be warned from the fact that increases in rates are running not at less than 10 per cent, but at 19 per cent, over the past year.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, whichever Labour Member succeeds my right hon. Friend as Chancellor, the new Labour Chancellor will not inherit from my right hon. Friend a balance of payments problem such as that which he inherited from Lord Barber?

Sir G. Howe: The next Chancellor will inherit a balance of payments precariously in balance as compared with the forecast that the Chancellor was making two years ago of a surplus of £3 billion. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman does not want the answer to the question, he should not have asked it.
The reality is that the incoming Chancellor will inherit a balance of payments that is in balance owing nothing whatsoever to the achievements of this Chancellor but owing everything to the resources contributed by North Sea oil, thanks to private enterprise. But, so far as the public exchequer is concerned, he will inherit a situation in which any Government, in order to begin putting the matter back into balance, are likely to be obliged either to raise taxation or to begin pruning the public spending plans. The Chancellor knows that very well. He was telling the House just that only two or three months ago.
The next Chancellor will be assuming responsibility for an inheritance that will be dismal indeed, as the CBI pointed out in its report published this morning. It has reported the most pessimistic outlook for nearly two years. The judgment on the Chancellor's achievement is really contained in the last Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, which said:
The consequences of failing to arrest this country's industrial decline are likely to become more pressing and obvious as time goes on. Now condemned to very slow growth, we might later even have to accept, if present trends continue, declines in real living standards.
That is the inheritance that will face the next Chancellor.
There should now be no room for doubt that this country needs a fundamental change of course if we are to repair the damage done by the Chancellor. The nation clearly needs substantial reductions in personal taxation to restore incentives, reductions in public spending programmes so that public spending is in line with what the nation can truly afford, and a willingness to shift the balance of the tax system away from pay-as-you-earn to pay-as-you-spend.
These are the lessons of this Chancellor's tenure of the Treasury. The first is that the vitality of an economy can never be restored by continued increases in taxation and continued growth in public

spending, public borrowing, which are the hallmarks of the present Chancellor's regime. It will be restored only by liberation and encouragement of personal initiative by cutting personal taxes—which will be the hallmarks of the next Conservative Government's administration of the Treasury.
The next Chancellor can also perhaps learn one other lesson from the present Chancellor, and that is that he would be well advised to refrain from believing that a lack of the right policies can be made good by the use of fine phrases, whether in the House or in Budget broadcasts. If I have one clear recollection of the Chancellor over the last five years, it is of his readiness to pepper his orations to the nation and to this House with references to the economic situation having been "transformed", the imminent onset of an "economic miracle", the approach of the threshold of a "golden decade", and that we were about to make a"tremendous leap forward".
Last year, the Chancellor may recollect the way in which his tributes to himself became positively Wordsworthian as he spoke to the nation. He talked about the snow "melting amongst the daffodils" outside the Treasury. He may remember the way in which a year ago he was going to "bring a bit of sunshine to brighten the spring of our recovery." If Healey spring comes, can Healey winter be far behind?
It is appropriate that the Chancellor's tenure of the Treasury should be coming to an end with this modest Bill, which we gladly accept as a threshold for an election which we shall win, and coming to an end not with a bang but with a whimper.

5.15 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Although this is of necessity a very limited Budget and a very limited Finance Bill, I do not think that we should let it go without placing on record the fact that it marks a milestone in social policy. I refer, of course, to the full implementation of child benefit.
I think that the House has barely grasped the social significance of what we have achieved in deciding that in future what the community can afford in family support will be given to the mother in the form of a cash benefit.
This certainly has not been easy to achieve. Anyone who thinks that this switch of policy has not come up against the instinctive resistance of male chauvinism cannot have been on the inside of some of the battles that have had to take place. We should chalk this up as a very remarkable piece of social advance—that for the first time in our history the mother, the woman of the household, will get her own income, weekly, to help feed and clothe the family. It is one of the most important pieces of social and sexual emancipation that we could have.
This also embodies the practical application of what has frequently been discussed—the need to merge tax reliefs and cash allowances in one form of social help. That was a grandiose idea in the Conservatives' tax credit scheme.
I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) is about to leave the Chamber. I proposed to have a good deal to say to him and to answer some of his points. However, with good masculine wisdom, he has now fled the Chamber.
I was saying that, in the Tory tax credit scheme, this great principle was enunciated. How foolish, it was said, to tax with one hand and to give back in cash with the other, and why not merge them and balance them? While the Conservatives talked, we have acted. This child benefit scheme is all that remains of the Tory tax credit scheme. The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East said so in as many words only a few days ago, when he said that a Conservative Government would not proceed with a tax credit scheme as the child benefit scheme had been introduced. Therefore, this great reform is ours, and ours alone. It is a sensible piece of rationalisation, as well as a humane provision.
Under a Conservative Government we would not have had this child benefit. Two or three years ago the Conservative Opposition made it clear that they wanted the child benefit scheme introduced at a level that would involve no extra cost. Under that formula the payment of £4 a week tax-free for every child that will start this month could not have been possible.
The figure that we have achieved at a time of economic difficulty is pretty remarkable. It is a real upturn in family support after years of stagnation or

decline. The figures prove that. In February 1974 when we came to power the value of family support in a family with two children under 11 years of age was £5·43 and it is now £8 a week. That is based on 1979 prices. That costs money.
The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East cannot cut the taxes that he has promised without cutting that sort of expenditure. The Conservative Party promises to cut taxes and give people more money to spend as they wish. That merely means that it would give some people more money to spend on their own account and others less. As these figures show, mothers and children would get about £3 a week less in the value of their child benefit. That should be set against the tax cuts that would primarily benefit those in a higher income bracket who are better off.
In October 1970, when the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) became Prime Minister, we heard the same promises that the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition is making to restore the incentive society, cut taxes and cut public expenditure. The right hon. Member for Sidcup practised what the right hon. Lady is preaching, and the result was catastrophic for ordinary families. It is an illusion and a trap. The tax relief benefits go primarily to those who need them least, and the increased charges and reductions in benefits fall on those who most need help. The promise of the Conservative Party to cut taxation will not increase everyone's power to spend money. It will merely redistribute money and take it away from low wage earning families with children. Those who benefit most from child allowance are normally on too low an income to pay tax. They are interested not in tax cuts but in increased child benefits.
On social security benefits generally, I welcome the Prime Minister's statement last week that the Chancellor estimated that next November he would be increasing pensions to £35 a week for a married couple and £22 for a single person. That would be achieved by relativity with prices and earnings, not only on a forecast to next November but making good last year's shortfall. A Conservative Government cannot cut taxes without altering that policy.
In an article a few days ago in The Daily Telegraph the hon. Member for


Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said that public expenditure had to be cut if taxes were cut. He suggested how that could be done and said that social security payments had become too extravagant. On pensions he said:
The linkage of pensions with average wages should be severed forthwith.
If the Conservative Government had been in power over the past five years, pensioners would be £10 a week worse off. That is what Tory tax cuts mean.
The same applies to all forms of social services. We introduced mobility allowance for the disabled. That is now £10 a week and is grouped with the other benefits for annual uprating. It is indexed. I say to the disabled people of this country "Return a Labour Government and your mobility allowance will go up to £11 a week. Return a Conservative Government and those increases will be cut to give tax relief to their wealthy friends who send them here." That is an inescapable choice in this election.
The most heartening news today was the Chancellor's statement that he was planning a further increase in child benefit next November. If he is returned, he will introduce it. Increases in child benefit should take place in November, because that is the general uprating date. That increase should be automatic every year for child benefit allowance, pensions, mobility allowance, invalid care allowance and so on. The Labour Government will never again allow family support to fall behind so insidiously.
We shall fight and win the election on the facts of social justice. The country tried the Ted Heath-Margaret Thatcher policy and it did not work. It does not want that miserable medicine again. Incomes must be fairly shared. The only way to achieve that is by social security payments, family benefits, disablement benefits and so on. When we are returned, we must not rest until we have brought the level of child benefit allowance up to that of the dependants' allowance for the unemployed on short-term benefits.
At present the child of an unemployed man is getting an allowance of £4·85 a week—already ahead of the £4 child benefit. That dependants' allowance will be automatically uprated in line with prices in November this year, unless by a

tragedy we have a Conservative Government and they repeal the legislation which I, as Secretary of State for Social Services, put through the House binding the Government to automatic increases in pensions and benefits in line with inflation or wages, whichever is the better for the beneficiary.
Supposing inflation is 10 per cent, by November—I do not know whether it will be anything like that any more than anyone else—that will mean another 48p on pensions and benefits. Therefore, for child benefit to be in line with the dependants' allowance for those who are unemployed or on sickness benefits, it will have to be at least £5·33 a week. We should not begin to consider indexing below that figure. In fact, below that we must increase.
This is the only way to deal with the work disincentives in our society. That is one of the biggest arguments for child benefit. Not only does the money go directly to the mother's purse, but it removes the anomaly whereby if a man is out of work he will get more to bring up his child than if he is in a low or modestly paid job. At present if a man has low wages and a large family, he can be brought, when he is out of work, above the level of wage and income that he enjoyed when he was employed. It is another vital social purpose to equalise these benefits.
That is the way to get rid of any work-shy syndrome in our society. That is the humane way, and is the very opposite to the brutal way that has been proposed by the hon. Member for Knutsford. He has been at the very heart of Conservative Party counsels and he is a very representative voice. In his article in The Daily Telegraph last Thursday he said:
We have got to widen—and widen substantially—the gap between reward for work and compensations for idleness …
I agree. That is why I am such a passionate supporter of child benefit. But that is not the method for the hon. Member for Knutsford—on the contrary. He continued:
so severing the index-linkage of supplementary benefits is also essential.
In other words, the standard of living of those on unemployment and sickness benefits would be allowed, under a Conservative Government, to fall systematically below the rise in the cost of living. That is what their tax cuts mean.
Therefore, we join issue with them triumphantly and wholeheartedly. Let us go into the fight and make known the differences that divide the two sides of the House. We stand for the policies that we have struggled successfully to introduce in these most difficult years. That is why I believe that when election day is over we shall see a Labour Government in power again. I shall not be here. This is my last speech in this House, my last word on my favourite subject of child benefit. However, the subject will keep rolling on because my hon Friends will carry on with the battle until, through the return of a Labour Government, we have built a just society.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The House will be the poorer when the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) is no longer a Member. We all wish her well after she has left. She has always been a doughty fighter, championing causes with great ferocity and vigour. I make no complaint about that except to say that perhaps it leads her to be less easy in wearing the mantle of authority and responsibility than that of a campaigner.
If I criticise what the right hon. Lady has just said, it is only because I thought that when she had responsibility for these matters she was less easy than she was when she made the fighting and angry speech that we have just heard. I shall refer to the substance of her speech a little later.
We on this side of the House prefer the Chancellor in his new-found role of scene shifter. He did not take up so much time or do quite so much bragging as he has done on his previous 14 performances on Budget Statements. I do not know what opera he intended to sing when he came here today, had the events of last week not intervened. I suspect that it might have been a mixture of Trumpet Voluntary and Rigoletto. We are glad that we missed that.
The problem is that in the Chancellor's 14 Budgets he has achieved nothing at all. The national production is identical to what it was before, and there has been no growth whatsoever. If there is no growth in the gross national product, fighting a cause such as the right hon. Member for Blackburn has just fought and taunting my hon. Friend the Member

for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) is to say that one lot of persons must be dis-advantaged at the expense of another. We all believe that we can do much better if we increase the total. What has gone wrong with the Chancellor's philosophy is that he has failed completely to increase the total disposable wealth of the nation. Everybody's aspirations could be met year by year in part if the wealth was increased.
My view about indexation of wages, pensions and benefits to either the cost of living or to average earnings is that sometimes it may be too much, but at other times it may be far too little. I should like to outbid the right hon. Member for Blackburn, both on child benefits and on the level of pensions. I know, but somehow she does not quite seem to realise, that one can only do that when there is real growth in production—

Mrs. Castle: Taking the situation as it is now, does the hon. Member think that it is right to switch some of that money from the pensioners, the disabled and children to people who are already comfortably off? Is that his idea of an incentive society?

Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Lady is rather naughty because she is seeking to put words into my mouth. She could not have been in the House when the Leader of the Opposition made it clear that we would match the pensions promised by the Prime Minister for this autumn. That disposes once and for all of the insinuation which the right hon. Lady is trying to put about.
I was talking of the long-term future. The right hon. Lady, with all her zeal, must realise that in a year of declining national wealth, which we might well have, there cannot be more for pensioners, and that indeed there might have to be less. In a year of growing national wealth, there can be more. It is the inflexibility of the right hon. Lady's mind to link what is available with what is produced that is the weakness of her case.
It is extraordinary that the taxation levelled by the Labour Government has been counter-productive. The higher the taxes screwed from the people, the less we have had in growth and in taxation yield. One of the effects has been that as a result of the Chancellor's policies tax.
evasion has spread on a massive scale. We know from the Inland Revenue that possibly between 7½ per cent, and 15 per cent, of gross domestic product is not being disclosed for income tax purposes, which might amount to as much as £10 billion. That could yield £3 billion or £4 billion in tax. I am afraid that as taxes are increased, more and more people tend to find ways round paying tax, either legally or illegally. I refer to people in all walks of life. The bulk of the money we lose comes from the large numbers of people who are "on the fiddle", as the chairman of the Inland Revenue recently put it. If one worker in eight does not declare £1,000 a year, that would result in 15 per cent, non-declaration of gross domestic product.
The danger is that as one decreases rates of taxation people find it less easy to bring themselves to come back to the straight and narrow. The effect of Labour's penal taxation policy has been to discredit income tax, to gather less money than otherwise might have been gathered, and at the same time greatly to restrict the growth of the economy. When this is coupled with an amnesty for Fleet Street casual workers, I believe that many people feel a deep and burning sense of injustice. That causes further disrespect for the tax system and causes the problems to multiply.
The verdict on the Chancellor has been that he has so misused the taxation machine that he has made the dream of the right hon. Member for Blackburn of increasing child benefits infinitely harder to realise.
We are now forced as a nation to transfer much more of the revenue-raising need from income tax to indirect taxes and VAT. That is perhaps regrettable, and many Labour Members may have wished that it had not happened. But it is their fault because they have made income tax appear so intolerable in the mind of the least well off, as well as of the better off, that they have been forced to find ways round the system. The position has now become so grievous and serious that the present system can no longer be considered as a fair vehicle for the collection of a large quantity of tax.
The comparison between the harassment of the self-employed, the sole traders and the unincorporated businesses and the amnesty granted to Fleet Street casual workers has probably done more harm in highlighting this injustice and in making other people feel that they, too, must save themselves from being fully honest to the tax system, so that a switch to indirect from direct taxation is now a necessity which any Chancellor will have to allow for in his next Budget. That proves that for many years my right hon. Friends were right in seeking to take such a step.
Finally, it must be realised that the taxable capacity of our nation, whether by direct or indirect taxes, rates or any other form of taxation, even through the erosion of values through inflation, has reached a point where it has become directly counter-productive. I do not think that there is any chance of paying £4 per week child benefits and in maintaining the value of that figure, or of putting £4 on the pension and maintaining the value of that pension in the years ahead, unless we do something to arrest the decline in the productive capacity and effort of this country. That makes it essential that income tax as well as spending should be cut.
The right hon. Member for Blackburn is therefore wrong to look at the matter in terms of giving money to the rich or to the earners. What she has misled the House about, and what she has left out of her calculations, is the fact that, unless we do something to make people earn more, declare more and pay more in tax, the standard of living of those of us who depend on the State cannot be maintained.

5.46 p.m.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: I am interested in the argument about the need to increase wealth and in the complaint that the Labour Government have discouraged investment. The latter is a remarkable accusation to level at a Government who have given huge allowances for stock appreciation to large corporations and who grant 100 per cent, first-year depreciation allowances for the purchase of equipment. If taxation is said to prevent investment, there appears to be something very wrong indeed with the calculations made by the multinationals, because they are omitting to


take into account the fact that they pay very little taxation indeed.
Has my right hon. Friend noticed a practice which has grown up, according to no less an authority than the Financial Times, in order that companies which have no connection with manufacturing should have the benefit of the 100 per cent, first-year depreciation allowances on capital equipment? The method is that these companies, which have no connection with manufacturing, purchase equipment which they do not need and lease it so that they can "shelter" their profits from corporation tax.
The use of the word "shelter" is interesting. A whole new language has grown up in taxation matters. I have in my hands an interesting article from the Financial Times concerning another kind of tax avoidance or evasion. The wording used is nothing so crude as "tax evasion" and not even as direct as "tax avoidance". The new expression is "tax efficient". The Financial Times kindly tells those who are wealthy that they can obtain unbeatable tax shelter if they adopt a certain form of investment, which is apparently known as "greenhouse" planning, because the investor can watch his money grow while it is protected from the financial climate. This means that an investor who, on paper, is liable to pay 98 per cent, tax can cut his tax to 37½ per cent.
It is an interesting fact of life that, at one fell swoop, the Opposition complain of those high rates of taxation while knowing that they are fictitious and that they and their friends can use some of the most clever brains in the country in order to find cunning and devious ways to become "tax efficient" —not paying their fair whack into the common kitty for the common good.
I understand from the Financial Times that the new plans replace an earlier generation of schemes which were
so outrageously tax efficient that they could not be publicised and were kept under the counter for customers in the know.
There is a class within a class within a class when it comes to the large investors. Those in the know have been permitted to take advantage of schemes which even the Financial Times called outrageous. However, in 1976, my right

hon. Friend killed off those schemes by bringing in new rules that required insurance plans to be specifically approved by the Inland Revenue. "Tax efficiency" has nothing to do with the efficiency of our economy—it is deviousness for the benefit of the rich.
The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) spoke of the need to improve production in this country. He is talking to the wrong people when he addresses these Benches. He should talk to the manufacturers of machine tools who, by consistently making the wrong production decisions, have ensured that there is a machine tool industry which makes the wrong goods. When investment opportunities are given to British industry and large amounts of public money are provided for investment, other manufacturers cannot even find produced in this country the sort of machine tools that are needed in the country. These are not decisions made by working people or decisions which have been made because of tax rules or tax levels. They are decisions which have been made by companies because they perceived the short-term profits and did not care about the long-term value of their work to the economy.
I agree that it is not sufficient to consider taxation alone. It is necessary to consider the underlying health of the economy. The economy will only be healthy when working people dominate decision making about the use of their labour. Then, talent—rather than cunning or deviousness—will be released.
I have enjoyed some of the speeches of hon. Members. For the first time in my five years here I enjoyed the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). My enjoyment was caused because of the passage in which he belatedly sought to bestow approval on my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and myself. We took steps to ensure that tax thresholds would be improved for the benefit of working people. However, I regret that he gave us credit only in order to claim some for the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson)—a credit that is quite misplaced. The hon. Member for Blaby did not put down any amendment to the 1977 Finance Bill relating to indexation of personal allowances. His


contribution was confined to an amendment to our amendment, by which he sought to weaken our provision.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is wrong on that matter, as she is on a number of matters. There was an indexation amendment on the amendment paper in Committee in 1977 in my name—as there were indexation amendments concerning personal allowances and other aspects of the tax system in 1975 and 1976 in my name. If the hon. Lady looks at Hansard she will see that I opened the indexation debate in 1977, because my amendment was called first. At that time, I said that I did not propose to press the amendment to a vote but would support her amendment provided that it was amended by my amendment. I thought that course of action had the greatest chance of success, and that is what ensued.

Mrs. Wise: I was not referring to rhetoric.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon): I should like to clear up the matter. The hon Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) has frequently claimed the credit. The credit belongs to my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise). It is easy for the Opposition to oppose the Government—it is their function and they do it all the time. To claim credit for opposing the Government is to claim credit for something that they do by force of circumstances. Where my hon. Friends succeeded was in bringing to bear the pressure of the views that they took and defying the Government—which is not an easy thing to do. They were right, and without their support nothing would have happened.

Mrs. Wise: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his generous remarks. The hon. Member for Blaby may have put down a rhetorical amendment—though I do not have it in front of me—but he did not have sufficient confidence in it to press it to a vote. What sort of amendment is that? If I put down an amendment, I want it voted upon.
We all know what happened in 1977. I accept that the hon. Member for Blaby

agrees with indexation. At that time, he saw an opportunity to persuade his hon. Friends to go along with him, provided that he weakened our proposal. That was the effect, because if we had had our way there would be no opportunity for a future Chancellor of the Exchequer to escape his responsibility to do this. If there is ever a future Conservative Chancellor, it will be he who seeks to evade the order.
My right hon. Friend has just indicated that we have converted our Front Bench. We have the whole Labour movement behind us in the belief that tax concessions must benefit the low paid the most. There was no possibility that the hon. Member for Blaby would have won Conservative votes for our proposal unless he could show them that he was providing them with a loophole. We were content to take our Front Bench on at full tilt. That is the difference.
I was fascinated to hear that the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East believes that tax thresholds, in which I am particularly interested, are still not high enough. I have a couple of questions for Conservative Members. If they think that the thresholds are still not high enough, why did they not move amendments to last year's Finance Bill to increase them instead of seeking to give huge concessions to the best off? They had the opportunity, but they used their majority for the benefit of the best off.
What about the present circumstances? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated that he would like to have increased the thresholds rather more. If the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East is so keen on raising thresholds, I am surprised that he did not go to the Chancellor and say that the Opposition want working people to have the best and quickest benefit from the Rooker-Wise amendment and therefore the Government and the Opposition should put their heads together to agree that the holding Budget could be implemented straight away and put money in people's pockets in the next few weeks.
That would not have given a party advantage to the Labour Party because it would have been an agreed holding Budget. Since the Conservatives are so keen to show their conversion to the principle of higher tax thresholds, they ought to


have confidence in their ability to persuade electors that it was Opposition pressure on a reluctant Chancellor that resulted in increases.
Such a move would have been an interesting, though not very important, injection into the general election campaign, but, more important, it would have been a useful addition to the money in people's pockets in the next few weeks. However, I am convinced, as is the press—and for once I think that the newspapers are right—that, instead of doing that, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues bent their efforts to trying to prevent the present proposals coming before the House, even in a holding form.
The Leader of the Opposition has promised tax cuts, but she studiously avoids promising increases in personal allowances. Her words relate to the standard rate of income tax and she reinforces them with references to the higher rate bands.
The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East complained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not increased the value of the 25 per cent, rate band, but I wonder how much time and energy the right hon. and learned Gentleman spent trying to twist the Chancellor's arm to do that. The 25 per cent, rate band is not included in the Rooker-Wise amendment because it did not exist in 1977. If it had, we would have provided for it. It exists now because the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced it when he bowed to proper and useful pressure from the TUC.
In 1977 the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who speaks for the Liberal Party on economic matters, suggested, rather cautiously and unconvincingly, that he was keen on a reduced rate band. I suggested in the Finance Bill Committee that he should introduce such a proposal in an amendment because he would have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr and myself. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman missed the opportunity of preceding the Chancellor. The 25 per cent, rate band stands entirely to the credit of the Government.
We have heard about the problems of elderly people, but we have not heard

that, in his first Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer improved the method of calculating and allocating tax concessions to the elderly. He changed the rates and the method, greatly to the advantage of the elderly.
It is no secret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I do not see eye to eye on a number of matters. I am not suggesting that we see eye to eye now. There are many deep differences of opinion between us, but my right hon. Friend should have the credit for introducing the reduced rate band and improving, as far back as 1974, the method of allocating tax concessions to the elderly.
I believe that the holding Budget will be the forerunner of an improved Budget shortly after 3 May when we shall be able to hear from the Chancellor his proposals for child benefits. I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said about child benefits. It is greatly to the credit of the Government that they heeded the collective pressure of the Labour movement and implemented the child benefit scheme in full. One of the great advantages of a Labour Government is that they have the opportunity of being in close touch with the voices of the people. Whenever a Labour Government heed the voices of the people, through the Labour movement they take actions that are morally right, popular and helpful to the population.
Seeing my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security on the Government Front Bench reminds me that the pressure for making good the shortfall in pensions arising from the calculation of the increase in earnings last year came entirely from this side of the House. I shall gladly give way if my right hon. Friend wishes to intervene in order to put the record right if he did receive pressure from the Opposition. If he received pressure from the Opposition, it would relieve my mind a little.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Stanley Orme): The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Stanley Orme) indicated dissent.

Mrs. Wise: I am surprised and disappointed that the Opposition were prepared to see pensioners less well off than they ought to have been. Did I say that I was surprised? That was a mistake. I am disappointed, but not surprised, at the Opposition's attitude. My right hon. Friend the Minister knows that there was


pressure from Labour Benches and private representations stressing the importance of the Government keeping faith with their own legislation. I am pleased that the Government saw the wisdom of that. It was expensive—I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge that there are difficulties in choosing priorities. But the Government have made a right choice, which is important in principle as well as in the pockets of the pensioners.
Hon. Members opposite have had many opportunties to say that they will maintain the practice of raising pensions in line with earnings if earnings are higher than prices. But they have conspicuously failed to take advantage of those opportunities. They have every intention of repealing that provision so that pensioners will be protected only against inflation and will not share in any increase achieved by working people generally. That is despicable. It will not be overlooked by people outside.
I promise that when the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer stands again at the Dispatch Box to present his Budget, I and many of my hon. Friends will be vigilant. I am sure, however, that the Chancellor will honour the promises that he has made today in relation to child benefit and increased thresholds. Just as voices and votes on this side in the past have been used to improve Government policy, so they will be used in the future, whenever necessary. I am convinced that, if such action is necessary, there will again ultimately be generous tributes from the Front Bench saying how right we were. It would save a lot of trouble if the Front Bench listened to the voice of the movement before, rather than after, we have any public fights. I am fairly sure that on present form that will be the case. I look forward, with immense anticipation and pleasure, to listening from these Benches to the next Budget of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. David Alton: In rising to speak I am conscious of the fact that this is the closing moment of this Parliament. That brings to mind two matters. Earlier, we heard the final contribution in this House of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle),

while today sees my first contribution to this Parliament. I know there is a convention that hon. Members congratulate new hon. Members on maiden speeches. I believe it is right that a new hon. Member should congratulate the right hon. Lady for the work that she has put into her movement in fighting for ordinary people.
I am also deeply conscious that I enter a House that has been recently bathed in sorrow, mourning the death of a man brutally murdered in an act of cowardice and terrorism. I am conscious, coming from the great city of Liverpool, that there has been a great deal of religious strife in our city over the years. There has been great sectarianism and the city has been divided on religious lines.
I am pleased to say that sectarianism in Liverpool has been conquered. In 1972, when I became a member of the city council, there was still a Protestant party fighting under that label. That is no longer the case. If the Liberal Party has achieved anything in the city of Liverpool, it is the breaking down of barriers and bringing together people of all colours and creeds, classes and sexes. We have broken away from the bigotry and prejudice that once existed.
I am sure that our philosophy of involving people is required in Northern Ireland today. The bullet can never replace the ballot in a free society.
Hon. Members will recall my predecessor, Sir Arthur Irvine, who had served the Edge Hill constituency since 1947, having been elected at a by-election. He was always most courteous to me. Many constituents have spoken of the warmth he showed to them. Like the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), he started in the Liberal Party and although he later replaced a big "L" for a small "1" he never forgot the fundamental principles of Liberalism.
Over those 30 years, my constituency has suffered the same basic problems as the rest of the country. Sometimes, those problems have been accentuated. A year ago, I came to the House of Commons with a delegation of local council representatives to meet the Prime Minister. We warned then that the employment situation on Merseyside was becoming desperate. I am sad to report that since that meeting a further 8,000 jobs have


been lost in manufacturing industries and that, in the first quarter of this year alone, a further 3,000 jobs in manufacturing industry have been axed. This means for people employed in companies such as Plessey and Dunlop the agony of the dole queue.
When the new Government are formed I hope that one of the first acts of the new Chancellor, the new Secretary of State for Employment and the new Secretary of State for the Environment will be to get together and begin a week of action. For one week alone, those Ministers should drop everything else and make a concerted effort to tackle the problems of the Merseyside conurbation. In order to create industrial growth on Merseyside, we must reclaim derelict land. There are 250 acres of derelict land in our South docks. Existing land within the city boundaries will have been exhausted by the end of this year. We desperately need an input from the Government to ensure that this land can be put to good use.
I also believe that the new Government must take measures to ensure that a fair system is introduced into industry. Until we introduce a fair system, we shall never create wealth. Unless we create wealth, we shall never create more work.
I also come to this House as chairman of the city housing committee. It would be wrong for me to pass without making mention of housing problems. In Liverpool, many homes are without inside toilets and bathrooms. On large council estates, there are tenants who have not got security of tenure and rights, promised to them at the outset of this Parliament.
Throughout the country as a whole, there are still 250,000 acres of derelict land within our cities and towns, enough to build nine new major cities. It came as a body blow to us to read circular 54/70 which threatened the whole basis of our home ownership policies in the city of Liverpool. This was a retrograde step. I hope that the Secretary of State for the Environment will think again, withdraw this circular and give people the opportunity of a stake in their community, as we believe in a stake at work through industrial participation. It would be a stake in their own community through home ownership.
In the past few years this House has spent a great deal of time discussing devo-

lution to Scotland and Wales. Perhaps the finest sort of home rule is rule over one's own home. I have sad news for members of the Tory Party who might cheer me when I say I believe in home ownership. I do not refer only to people living in council houses. Home rule should also apply to people living in private accommodation, owned by private landlords, who have refused to give basic amenities such as inside toilets and bathrooms.
The time must come when this House turns its attention to the finances of housing. It is the economics of the madhouse that it costs £150,000 over a 60-year borrowing period to build one three-bed-roomed council house. We must also increase improvement grants to ensure that people can get 80 per cent. grants. It is crazy that men in the construction industry should be idle and unable to use their skills. It would be far better if they were able to improve homes and provide people with decent places in which to live, rather than standing idle in the dole queues. Those people should be put to good use. Incentives should be offered through 80 per cent. improvement grants for all people in housing action areas and for all in full-grant areas.
This House should also turn its attention to the problems of protecting our community. When people are frightened to walk on the streets in many major conurbations, we need to look again at the way in which we run our system of law and order. We need to see more policemen back on the beat, walking around thir own local communities, and small local police stations should be reestablished. It was a retrograde step to close small police stations and leave communities without proper police protection.
Also on the subject of smallness, we should look again at our schools policy. I was concerned last Friday, the day after the Edge Hill by-election, to read that the Secretary of State for Education and Science had decided that she would determine her proposals for the reorganisation of schools in Liverpool. I was amazed that the right hon. Lady should have waited until the day after the by-election to announce her plans, and that, in the dying breaths of this Parliament, she should decide on the future of many children in Edge Hill.
If local Labour Party proposals go through, they will sound the death knell of many of our small, local, non-selective schools. Arbitrarily, children will be herded off to a school built, as a result of Labour Party dogma, for 2,000 children, but with only 400 in it at present. It would be an act of incredible folly to ignore the wishes of parents who have chosen schools for their children.
We should also look at the way in which we use our resources. I plead with the House and with the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport to reconsider their proposals for the extension of the urban link of the M62 motorway and the construction of the inner ring road. If the inner ring road goes ahead, it will cost £40 million in capital expenditure and £1 million a year in interest charges for the next 40 years. That is too much of a burden to expect local people on Merseyside to pay for a road which most Merseyside politicians agree is not needed.
If one cannot afford the blankets on the bed, one does not have the piano french-polished. If politics is about priorities, surely it means putting first things first and dealing with basic amenities and services, not spending money on grandiose pie in the sky dreams which will become taxpayers' nightmares.
Five days ago, the people of Edge Hill decided to reject the old ways. They gave a massive thumbs-down sign to both the other parties. I believe that that happened because people are frustrated and cynical about the way in which politicians have let them down. People of my generation are angry about the way in which the establishment parties have forgotten what service means, have forgotten about the way in which people should see and hear from their elected representatives.
Although it may sound arrogant of me to come here and say these things, hon. Members will appreciate that there will not be much time in the present Session for me to say much more on this subject. I am confident that, in the election to come, not only will Liverpool lead the way, as it has done so often, but Liberals will lead the way, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr.

Steel). I hope that I shall return to this Bench so that I may make more speeches in future. I also hope that there will be many more Liberals with me.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Terence Higgins: It is a privilege for me to be able to congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) on his maiden speech. There are certain traditions about maiden speeches, and if his was perhaps a little more controversial than tradition normally allows, no doubt that is because of the present circumstances. I suppose that many of us, not including myself, may use the same speech in two general elections and make several parliamentary speeches in between, but few of us can manage to do so without updating in the meantime.
We listened to the hon. Member with interest, particularly to his generous tribute to his predecessor, the late Sir Arthur Irvine, who served the House for more than 30 years, including a period as Solicitor-General in a Labour Government. The hon. Member for Edge Hill must have set a record in the shortness of time between his introduction and his maiden speech. Front Bench speeches are rarely as short as those which we have had today, so a space of three hours is surely a record. However, it remains to be seen whether the hon. Gentleman is re-elected. If he is, he may find himself leader of the Liberal Party.
I was intrigued by the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that he felt rather like an opera singer who had arrived on stage only to be required to do scene shifting. I wondered what opera he had in mind. Since this has been his swan song, I thought that it was probably "Lohengrin". There was an unfortunate circumstance in one production of "Lohengrin", in which the scene shifter pulled the rope attached to the end of the swan before the tenor could get on it. The tenor said to his comrades "What time does the next swan go?" For the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it has already gone.
As one looks back over the right hon. Gentleman's innumerable Budgets—I have almost lost count of them—one sees him more in the circumstances of
"Götterdämmerung", in the last act of which the scenery falls down rather than someone being called upon to hold it up.
The Chancellor's record has not been spelt out in great detail today, although my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) referred to some aspects. I want to refer to that and also to something which concerns a number of us—the Fleet Street tax amnesty. I also want to deal with cash limits, which have not so far beer mentioned at all, even by the Chancellor.
It is important to stress this Government's disastrous record compared with their predecessors. It is usual to say that one bases such assessments on the main economic indicators—the level of unemployment, the cost of living and, of course, economic growth. On that basis, even now, the comparison is remarkable, despite the temporary fillip given to the Government's performance by preparations last October for the election that never was.
Taking unemployment first, under the previous Conservative Government it fell by 23,000; under this Government it has risen by a disastrous 250,000. The hon. Member for Edge Hill mentioned the effects of that on his constituency. The average annual figures were 700,000 under the Conservatives and 1,100,000 under this Government—an increase of almost 50 per cent.
On prices, the record is almost equally disastrous. Under the Conservatives, the average rise was 9·5 per cent. per annum and under this Government it has been 15·5 per cent.—again, more than a 50 per cent. increase—and with a pound which has dropped in value to 50p. That has all happened against a background of world economic circumstances far more favourable to this Government than to the previous Government.
Finally, the level of output under this Government, despite the fact that they recast the basis of the indices and despite the effect of North Sea oil, has been less than 1 per cent. a year in terms of GNP, compared with 3·6 per cent. under the previous Government—a remarkable difference.
The opinion polls still show clearly that these economic indicators—unemployment, prices and real standard of living—are the issues about which people are concerned. On all of them, the comparison is remarkable and the present Government's failure is appalling. That

is due to no one more than to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, as usual, appeared so blandly before us today.
Finally in this area, one must stress the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East about the investment income surcharge, particularly its effect on pensioners. No group has suffered more than pensioners, particularly those on fixed incomes, from the ravages of inflation. Despite the increases in the national insurance pension, those relying to some extent on savings or other pensions not related to the cost of living have seen their real standard of living steadily decline. It is incredible that they have managed to survive for so long. The only way in which one can help such people is by raising the limit on investment income surcharge pensioners to about £4,500 instead of the £2,500 set by this Government. One of the first things that the present Government did was to lower that limit. That will not be forgiven easily.
I turn from the broad issues to the question of the amnesty negotiated by the Inland Revenue with trade union casual workers in Fleet Street. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and I have been worried about the issue. I raised it under Standing Order No. 9 and my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury sought to introduce a Ten Minute Bill. We pointed out the disastrous effects that this move is having on many people who feel that they have been unfairly treated. There is grave cause for concern.
Important constitutional issues are involved in the precise relationship between Ministers and Inland Revenue officials. The traditional view is that Ministers are responsible for decisions made by officials. However, it is difficult to avoid the impression that Ministers have sought to shelter behind the provisions of clause 1 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970. That Act gives the management of the tax system to the Inland Revenue.
Ministers have implied that those provisions give the Revenue absolute discretion about whether it charges taxes which are imposed by the House. That has never been the view of hon. Members. Of course it is right that the Inland Revenue should have discretion in individual cases.
We all accept that there may be extenuating circumstances in individual cases. However, that is totally different from agreeing that the Inland Revenue should negotiate with a whole group and decide that relief should be given to that group. That is the prerogative of the House. That prerogative should not be usurped by Inland Revenue officials.
In a letter to one of my hon. Friends and in reply to a question, the Minister said that negotiations were carried out not with the trade unions but with individuals. That is not borne out by the facts.
In the letter from the Inland Revenue to the trade unions, it is stated that the concession was to be given only to members of SOGAT, NATSOPA and the NGA. That means that the agreement was not negotiated with individuals.
The inconsistencies in the Minister's letter are remarkable. He states that the negotiations were carried out with individuals. Two paragraphs later he adds that the Government had to come to this special arrangement with the trade unions because they did not know who the individuals were. That was a strange letter for a Minister to sign. It should be carefully considered.
I shall not weary the House by going into many other aspects of this issue because I am sure that the next Conservative Government will consider it carefully.
If the traditional limits which we have always expected to be imposed on the Inland Revenue have been broken by precedent—and this decision is a precedent—there should be a clear qualification to clause 1 of the 1970 Act which makes it clear that any group relief should be agreed by a statutory instrument approved by the House. That is why I was party to an amendment to this measure which, unfortunately, was not selected.
I turn to the question of the cash limits White Paper which was published today. Cash limits are an important way of imposing monetary control. Pay forms a high percentage of total Government expenditure. Similarly, increases in pay form a high percentage of increased Government expenditure. If cash limits are

to be effective, they must be limits and they must be imposed regardless of what happens to pay, albeit on a reasonable forecast of what is expected to happen to pay.
The White Paper is quoted in the Treasury press release which was distributed this afternoon. It states:
In respect of pay, the cash limits will be set in accordance with the policy stated in Cmnd. 7293, together with the £3·50 underpinning subsequently announced. The Government will review each case as settlements are reached. Certain adjustments may be necessary but for Central Government expenditure on manpower the general principle will be that a substantial proportion of any excess cost above the provision already made till have to be absorbed within the existing cash limits.
The Government are saying that the cash limit will be reviewed and adjusted if necessary in the light of pay settlements.
If that is so, it is rubbish to call them cash limits. They are not limits. In those circumstances the pay claims are setting the cash limits and the cash limits are not in any way restricting the pay claims, except in the sense that some may be absorbed and some may not. This undermines the point of having cash limits.
It is the proposal to integrate this system which gives cause for concern. It means that if the Government are unsuccessful in resisting an inflationary pay claim, and the House does not approve a change in the cash limits, the issue will be set between the trade union on the one hand and the House on the other. That is likely to lead to difficulties. It reinforces the case for changing the position for essential industries and restoring it to what it was prior to 1971 for industries such as electricity, gas and water, while ensuring that they do not suffer as a result of having negotiated a non-strike clause.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has presented many Budgets. Today's Budget is less damaging than many that have gone before. However, an enormous amount must be done. The late lain Macleod used to say—and he was right—that Labour Governments always increase taxes and Conservative Governments always cut them. I have no doubt that that will continue to be so. On that basis, I hope that we can say farewell to this Finance Bill. I look forward to the one which we shall introduce shortly.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) on his maiden speech. He is right to have no truck with the tradition of so-called noncontroversial maiden speeches. We come to the House to speak on behalf of our constituents. We can go nowhere else. The hon. Member was right to use today to make that speech. I have no doubt that he will be back in the next Parliament to make further speeches. I can say that because not many of my colleagues are in the Chamber.
I too am falling into the trap of tradition. That is exactly the type of phrase that all hon. Members use when referring to an hon. Member's maiden speech. We all mumble that we have no doubt that we shall hear much more from an hon. Member and none of us means it, especially when we are talking of an hon. Member from a different party. I do not speak in party terms, but if a few more of my hon. Friends make speeches like the one made by the hon. Member for Edge Hill, I shall be pleased after the next election.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Edge Hill on the genuine tribute that he made to his predecessor and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). He paid her a very generous tribute after we heard her swan song today. I would have said more about my right hon. Friend had she still been here. The House and the Labour movement owe my right hon. Friend a great debt for the contribution that she has made in the time that she has been in this House.
We are supposed to be debating the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, but not many of us are talking about the Bill. We have not had a real Budget. However, certain things have to be put on the record. First, I wish to express my total disdain at the fact that the Inland Revenue has over the last eight or nine weeks wasted an enormous amount of public money in sending out to millions of workers notices of coding based on last year's figures. If the Revenue has time to do that, knowing full well that section 22 of the 1977 Act contains an index provision, and that the Government have not indicated that they would bring forward an order to negative that provision, it must have time to waste. It should

have sent out coding notices based on the new figures. I would much rather it did not waste public expenditure in the way that it has. It is no function of the tax system to provide jobs for tax inspectors. Its function is to collect taxes in the most efficient possible way.
If it has been tipped the wink by the Chancellor that he is planning to introduce personal allowances over and above those required by section 22, that is fine. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor may have hinted at something along those lines when he spoke today. It will be interesting if my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary puts a figure on what the Government have in mind. In that case, those of us who are going to the hustings will be armed with the figure now, rather than having to wait for it to come out at a press conference during the election campaign.
The Inland Revenue could have used its time more wisely. It could have spent time on finding ways to stop the tax fiddles—I mean all of the tax fiddles. No one in the House can accuse me of being hypocritical on this issue, of supporting some tax fiddles and attacking others. I have attacked them all, from top to bottom. I have attacked them whether they have been the establishment figure of the chartered accountants' profession, Mr. Stitt, from Arthur Anderson, doing his tax evasion and tax avoidance courses on transfer pricing. That was some years ago, but he is probably still doing them for all I know. The workers on The Sun are in the same boat. They have just as many fiddles and are just as much scroungers on the rest of the workers in this country as anyone who fiddles the Welfare State or the tax system. I hope that the tax laws will take their normal course with the employees of The Sun.
It crossed my mind that perhaps some of these Fleet Street casual workers—those who work a Saturday night on the Sunday newspapers—may be members of the Inland Revenue. Perhaps they have so much time to spare on a Saturday that they can pop down to Fleet Street and do a quick night's work free of tax. Perhaps that is why the amnesty has been granted. It is a point that someone has to raise, and this is the only place in which to raise it. It probably could not be raised outside.
There is no shortage of work for the Revenue. Its staff could have been usefully employed on other matters in the last few months rather than sending millions of workers incorrect tax codes. The staff could have examined the agenda of the 1979 corporate tax conference which is to be held on 25–27 April this year. I need describe only one of the seminars which is to be held. It deals with tax efficient remuneration arrangements for top management and offers "a co-ordinated approach". That seminar is being held by one of the staff of Keyser Ullmann Ltd. Of course, there are hon. Members who speak on behalf of and are top brass members of that organisation. They know a thing or two about tax efficient remuneration.
In sending out the inaccurate codings, the Revenue has been giving a misleading impression. My postbag, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise), has been full in these past few weeks with letters from people saying that they have received their tax coding and asking what has happened to the Rooker-Wise amendment. They complain that their tax coding is the same as last year's. I have had to write back and tell them that I have every confidence that the Government will be implementing the amendment and may increase the thresholds in real terms, but that they must wait until the Budget to find out.
It must be said said loud and clear, because even my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has not stated it, that personal allowances are being raised in this Bill, that the payments will be made on or before 1 August and will be back-dated to 5 or 6 April, and that they will be worth about £1 a week off the income tax of a married man at work. Pensioners who pay income tax—there are millions of them—and who have small works pensions will, as a result of the rise in the age allowance for married couples, have a tax cut of over £1.10 a week.

Mr. Lawson: Mr. Lawson indicated dissent.

Mr. Rooker: Does the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) deny that? I am describing the effect of the raising of the age allowance.

Mr. Lawson: I was shaking my head because the hon. Member is speaking as

though he does not understand the import of the indexation provisions of section 22 of the 1977 Act. He played an important part in getting them through the House. They were to ensure that a man or a woman would be no worse off as a result of inflation. They are not designed to make people any better off.

Mr. Rooker: We now hear the newspeak, the Orwellian technique. In the past, Conservative and Labour Chancellors have announced increases in personal allowances from the Dispatch Box, and have trumpeted them outside the House as tax cuts. When allowances are not raised in line with inflation, there is a bigger tax bite. A tax cut is a tax cut is a tax cut. In terms of the pound in your pocket, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will be better off as a result of this Bill. You will have £1 a week more—in fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will be even better off because you probably pay more tax. The average worker will have an extra £1 a week in his pocket, and that cannot be denied. It is the same for the pensioner. Those pensioners who are caught in the tax trap will have more than £1 a week.
In real terms, I know, this change will simply be keeping taxpayers in line with inflation, but that in itself is a success. It is, indeed, a success to achieve today the sort of tax cut that is involved here, bearing in mind what has happened over the last decades. This is not a party argument. Over the decades the erosion of the thresholds has meant that tax has bitten harder and harder on the low-paid workers—those on less than average earnings, which is two-thirds of all employees—and on the pensioners who pay tax.

Mrs. Wise: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) acknowledges that the constant references by the Opposion to high taxation obscure the real position, which is that the only people who really suffer from high taxation are those on lower incomes. Does not my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition use that fact to their own advantage with the intention of improving the lot of the best-off?

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is correct. The highest marginal rates of tax in this country are paid by the low-paid. It is possible for someone in that category to


pay a marginal rate of more than 100 per cent. A rise in a man's earnings can be counteracted by implications for school milk, rent rebate, rate rebate and family income supplement. He could be worse off at the end of the day. My hon. Friend talks about the well-off—the managers and the entrepreneurs. They have had massive tax cuts in the last two or three years. Let me quote one point about managers from the Financial Times of 6 December last. The headline is:
Managers ' surviving income tax demands '.
It states:
Managers in Britain are not as harshly penalised by the personal income tax system as is often claimed, especially when other countries' higher costs of living are taken into account, says a survey ".
It points out:
In Britain, the average married executive with two children retains 74 per cent. of his gross income, compared with 60 per cent. in New York, 33 per cent. in Sweden, 62 per cent. in Belgium ".
Where is all the evidence about hard-pressed business executives if that is what they retain from their gross earnings, not counting all the tax packages which can be got round? There is nothing in this Budget for those earning over £150 a week, and I am proud to stand here and say so. I should have attacked any change which gave any benefit other than the spillover from the raising of the thresholds which is a consequence of our crazy tax system. I hope that, during the general election, we shall not have any promises by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to that section of the population. Their backs are broad enough to relieve the burden on the low-paid and pensioners.
Were it not for this Bill, we should again be in real trouble because of the interaction of the social security and tax systems. If we do not change the allowances, come November, when the social security uprating takes place, we shall have calls by the Opposition to the effect that it does not pay to work in this country. Such calls have been silenced in the last two years because the Finance Act 1977 and the further Act that was passed in October that year gave a substantial increase in the tax thresholds. Calls by Tory Members—for example, by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat)—have been almost totally

silenced. We have not got the thresholds up to what my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West and I would like, but at least we have silenced that call.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I think not.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman denies that fact. But my postbag has diminished. My hon. Friends also privately admit that their postbags have diminished. I understand from talking to various outside organisations that pressure on them has receded somewhat because of the substantial raising of the tax thresholds in 1977 and 1978.

Mr. Brooke: Muted.

Mr. Rooker: Muted. But if we had not made that change, we should have again been back in that situation. Therefore, I am doubly pleased that this situation has come about.
I am also pleased that the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) had the good grace to come here today and tell the truth. I was beginning to think that he could not separate fact from fiction. I heard him on the "World at One" last Wednesday claiming all the credit for this indexation clause. I rang the BBC and said "You had better get something done about this on the 'PM' programme, because it is not true."
Section 22 of the 1977 Finance Act is very badly drafted. I am prepared to admit that it is loosely drafted and technically deficient. But its intention is perfectly clear:
In the year 1978–79 and subsequent years the personal reliefs allowed in this section shall be changed by not less than the same percentage as the increase in the retail price index for the previous calendar year ".
There is nothing muddy about that. It may be normal parliamentary language, but I am not a lawyer. Nevertheless, the intention is clear. Those are the words of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West. We put it in that way because we knew that Budgets always came in March or April. We knew that if we said the previous year "there would be disputes about what year we meant and about leaving it open to Chancellors to use any part of the year. Therefore, we made it precise by


referring to "the previous calendar year".
I understand that there is an argument whether a calendar year means December to December or January to January. We had not thought that anyone would have such a warped mind as to try to twist us out of that. If we take January to January, the figure will be slightly different.
The part of the section which I have quoted was tabled, advocated and voted for by Labour Members of Parliament.

Mr. Lawson: Opposed by Labour Members of Parliament.

Mr. Rooker: I am talking about myself and my hon. Friend. Of course it was supported by Tory Members on the Committee. It is axiomatic. It would not have been passed without a majority in Committee. It was actually supported by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who woke up a bit late in the day in that Committee on 14 June 1977. When he saw the light of day—when he realised that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West and I had gone to that Committee to do a job of work, not to be rubber stamps—the hon. Gentleman changed his tune and started to vote with us for the rest of the night. Indeed, he voted against the Government more times that day than did my hon. Friend and I, and he was part of the Lib-Lab pact.
My right hon. and hon. Friends are democratic and have social consciences big enough to appreciate the supreme benefit of that amendment over the last two years. That is not to attack them for accepting it. It is greatly to the Government's credit that they have seen the benefit of the amendment. It is no use Opposition Members trying to nullify my right hon. Friend's characteristic generosity in accepting our amendments with good grace and sincerity in his heart.
The other part of the provision in 1977 was added by the hon. Member for Blaby to give the Government of the day a getout. If anyone wanted to get the thresholds linked to inflation so that they maintained their real benefit, he would not have come along with an amendment such as that. It clearly implies that there will be times when the Government will

not want to raise them in line with inflation. The only time that I can envisage our wanting to wipe them out completely is a time to which I look forward—namely, when a Labour Government come forward with a Finance Bill containing a root and branch reform of the income tax system. That is when we shall attack the real problems. They cannot be solved with piecemeal amendments tacked on to finance legislation by the quirks of history and voting strengths in this House. That is not the way to operate a tax system in a country with 50 million people, almost half of whom pay income tax.
We need a root and branch reform of the system to take account of the genuine needs of people. For example, we need a householder's allowance for the single person running a household. We must reform the allowance for a married man whose wife works so that certain people do not get an unfair advantage over others. We need a system without loopholes. Until we reach that situation, the Government will be faced with piecemeal changes such as this one. I shall return after the general election not to be a rubber stamp—I have never been a rubber stamp—but to seek further changes.
I want the age allowance benefit for retired people to be given to women who retire at 60. I put down an amendment to that effect on the Finance Bill of 1977. But, after the problems that we caused, I decided not to press it. I reserved my position to come back another day, and I shall come back after the general election.
Another point I should like to mention concerns the increase in the child benefit allowance. Ministers must make it abundantly clear during the next few weeks that a great step forward has been taken today, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. It will be difficult to put over the argument that there will be a change from the wage packet to the purse. We understand some of the problems which exist in society today in this regard. Labour Members know more about them, of course, because we are more in touch with ordinary people.
A massive percentage of working men in this country will not disclose their wages to their spouses. The problem is not as great as it was in the past but it


is still a major one. These working men will resent in some way the fact that they will pay a little more tax for a few weeks until the Rooker-Wise amendment takes effect and they get their bonus. They will tend to forget that their wives will be picking up the child benefit. It will be the same money, and overall there will be a gain. That has to be made clear.
Most working people who pay income tax only at the basic rate do not appreciate that the effect of the child tax allowance system, which has now gone, was such that the rich, the well-off, people getting upwards of £200 a week—and there are many of them—were getting far more out of the system than ordinary workers. This was because of the marginal rates of tax that these well-off people were paying. We have attacked a massive tax loophole for the rich by making a single benefit tax-free to all, so that the benefit to low-paid families as a proportion of their income is now much greater than it is to the well-off. It is a real social change, but it is one which will require some educational work on the part of Ministers on the hustings in the next few weeks.
In a parliamentary question on 30 November last, I asked what was the total increase in net expenditure on child benefit between April 1978 and April 1979, including the changes of April 1978 and November 1978 and the change that was planned for April 1979, which has now taken place. I was told that the change in child benefit outgo was £1,895 million and that the loss in tax revenue was £715 million. There was a net cost to the Exchequer—that is to say, an increase in public expenditure—of £1,180 million. There were savings in some other social security benefits of £350 million.
The net result is that over the last 12 months the Government have added new resources amounting to £830 million to people with families.
That takes account of the increased tax that men will pay. It takes account of the raising of the threshold and of the raising of child benefit last April, last November and this April. This is a massive achievement for a Government—£830 million in 12 months—bearing in mind the economic circumstances that we face.
As we have heard today, the people will not get that from the Tories. The first question asked at Question Time today was about help for the disabled, and we heard the truth then from the Opposition Front Bench—that only when there is an increase in gross national product will the Tories give these increased benefits to the disabled and to the pensioners. That theme was echoed by Tory Members throughout Question Time and in the speeches of Tory Members in the present debate.
I accept that there is an element of truth and common sense in that approach, but I do not regard a period of slow growth or nil growth as one in which we can do nothing about the needy. I am here in this place, and on the Labour Benches, in order to take from the people represented by the Tory Party, so that we can give benefits to the disadvantaged and the needy in our society.

Mrs. Wise: Hear, hear.

Mr. Rooker: There is nothing to be ashamed of in standing here and saying that I want the well-off to pay more to those who are poor, to the single parents, the disabled and the pensioners, even in a nil-growth economy. I am here in order to help
to bring about a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of wealth and power in favour of working people and their families.
I want to make that a reality. I am not prepared to wait until we have a sustained growth of 4 per cent., 5 per cent., 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. a year. In the Labour Party we do not need to wait for that to take place, even though it is desirable, before we give help to those who need it.
The Tories have made their message loud and clear today. They have said that they will accept what we did about pensions in November, but that is not now the test before the electorate, because the measure already passed by the Labour Government is to the effect that pensions will be raised in line with earnings or prices, whichever is the higher. The Government have kept faith with that, and there is no doubt whatever about it. No one can claim otherwise.
The Tories have said that they will meet the commitment, but the electorate will want to know what the Tories, if they are returned to power, will do in 1980


and 1981. That is the crucial question, and the Tories will have to answer it in the next four weeks. It is easy enough at the moment for the Tories to carry out our promise because it is already part of the law, but I believe that if they win power they will change section 125 of the Social Security Act 1975, in order to relieve themselves of the need to raise pensions in line with prices or earnings, whichever are the higher.
The Tories have been challenged day in and day out by Labour Members over the past three years, and they have never been prepared to give the undertaking that we have asked them to give. The message has obviously come down to Tory Members from the top to keep their mouths shut on this question. Just before Christmas, a Tory Member appeared on the Opposition Front Bench for one debate. He was promoted for the occasion. I refer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson). It fell to him to deal with the Bill concerning the Christmas bonus for pensioners. He actually said from the Opposition Dispatch Box that he thought that the Christmas bonus to the pensioners should go to those who most needed it.
There was only one interpretation to put on that—that the Tory Party would means-test the Christmas bonus to the pensioners. Of course, the Shadow Chancellor—he who brushes his teeth in the dark—denied it, but that promise was made by the Tory Front Bench spokesman on that occasion. From that day to this the hon. Member for Walsall, North has had to languish on the Tory Back Benches. The Tories will not let him come to this House for social services debates because he told the truth that day. He blew the gaff.
I shall be making the Tory Party policy abundantly clear in Perry Barr, for a start, because the Tories have clearly said today that only if there is growth, and only if there are tax cuts for the rich, will they keep faith with the pensioners and do something for the disabled. In addition, it ought to be remembered that the Tories are almost pledged, from their statements in Standing Committee, to involve unemployment pay and short-term benefits within the tax system. Given half a chance, they will do it, because it is a way of raising revenue. They believe

that they could raise an extra £400 million or £500 million a year in revenue by taxing sickness benefit. They have said as much in Committee, although what happens there is not always widely reported outside.
I am in favour of any measure to eradicate abuse, but the Tories are attacking and fundamentally undermining the Welfare State. I want my right hon. Friend, when he replies, to make quite clear that that is no part of Labour policy or Labour philosophy. We want to see a root and branch reform of the tax system, What we do not want to see are piecemeal reforms, once computerisation starts. We know that the Tory Party is waiting to do that, although it will not get the chance to do it. There must be no changes at all on this issue unless they are part of a fundamental root and branch reform of the tax system.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Peter Brooke: My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), in congratulating the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) on his maiden speech, said that he thought that the hon. Member had created a record in speed between the time he was introduced to the House and the making of his maiden speech. As I believe I am the final speaker in the debate from the Opposition Back Benches, and the hon. Member for Edge Hill and I are meeting in extraordinary circumstances, I shall add my congratulations to the record. In that way, by the time the debate concludes, everyone who has spoken will have congratulated him.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who has just left the Chamber, is critical of the conventions in regard to this matter, but there is also a convention that one looks forward to many speeches from hon. Members after they have made their maiden speeches. If the Tory candidate in the forthcoming general election for Edge Hill is an exception to the rule that there will be a Conservative landslide, I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Edge Hill beats all his other opponents and returns to the House to make further speeches as good as that which he made today.
I myself came into this House within days of a vote of confidence and was


spared making my maiden speech quite as fast as the hon. Member for Edge Hill, because the Liberal Party had forged the Lib-Lab pact. I am grateful to the Liberal Party for having reversed that pact in a more recent vote of confidence.
My main reason for speaking in the debate is because I wish to respond to the remark made by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise). But, clearly, one should make a brief reference to the debate as a whole.
The Chancellor, in opening the debate, used an operatic metaphor. I was reminded of the soprano who stands at the top of the steps and says "I must fly" and then continues for a quarter of an hour. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing saw a resemblance in "Lohengrin", but I was reminded of the documentary, produced by a television company in 1974, showing the Chancellor at work in which the incidental music was taken from Rossini's "Thieving Magpie".
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-West was implicitly critical of my constituents in the City of London in one reference in her speech. I did not follow the whole of her speech, but she implied that machine tool manufacturers in Coventry deliberately design their tools either in order to lose money or in order to pass it into the hands of the National Enterprise Board, which, I believe, employs three out of five people in the city of Coventry.
The hon. Lady referred to what she called the "greenhouse scheme" which she described as deviousness for the benefit of the rich. There is an old adage about people in greenhouses not throwing stones. It seems to me that the scheme is relatively simple and straight-forward. Given the malevolence of this Government towards the investing community, I would have been surprised had they not put such a scheme out of order during their time in office.
I am at one with the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West in what she said, because it would seem unfortunate if investment had to take these indirect routes through schemes of that sort rather than through private investment. It is a fact that we have relatively centralised power. At a time such as the present,

when things are getting better, that is a good thing because it means that things get better faster. But when things are getting worse it is a disadvantage, and I would much rather see power in the hands of individuals than in the hands of institutions.
When my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench form our Administration, I hope that we shall see a general reduction in taxation such that these shelters become less attractive than they were previously. If the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West does not return to the Chamber after the election, she can at least rely on me to support that particular view in her absence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ciren-cester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) made general reference to lawlessness in the land as regards tax matters. Obviously all hon. Members would deplore that state of affairs, but one of the encouragements which one should derive is that when it becomes as general as, alas, it has now become, it forces Governments to realise that they must change the law in such a way that it will once again be respected.
In the eighteenth century smugglers did a lot to save this country from mercantile errors by the effectiveness of their smuggling. I hope that what we have seen in the course of the past five years in terms of the trends in this direction will lead to Governments bringing in sensible laws which the people can respect.
The greatest relief in coming to the end of this Parliament, and what would otherwise have been the fifteenth Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is that of thinking that we shall not be subjected to a Budget from this Government again in the near future. To paraphrase and parody a sentence on cigarette packets, we have learned, to our distress, over the past five years that Her Majesty's Government can seriously damage one's wealth—I do not say that in an individual but in a collective sense. The country as a whole must realise that its wealth can be damaged by policies such as have been brought in by this Government.
I do not adhere to the view that by any direct action of their own Her Majesty's Government can create wealth. However, the Government can create a climate in which wealth can be accumulated for the


good of the nation as a whole. I sincerely hope that when my right hon. and hon. Friends form their Administration after the election they will bring in laws which will enable wealth to be created.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rees: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced Budgets almost without number, together with Finance Bills. This is, I think, the first Finance Bill that he has introduced without a Budget. This is in no sense a Budget debate. It is not even a debate about a caretaker Budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has neither the authtority nor the legitimacy to inflict yet another Budget on the country. However, being the compulsive budgeteer he is, the Chancellor could not resist a 20-minute analysis of the economic position of the country.
In so doing, I am sorry that the Chancellor did not compare what he said today with what he said on 11 April last year when he introduced what was his last Budget. I shall remind the House of what he said on that occasion:
Four years of painful and difficult decisions have now got the economy into much better balance.… Our financial position has been transformed. The year-on-year rate of inflation is well into single figures and still falling. Interest rates are far below the level of four years ago.
Later, in a rather muted voice, he said:
Thus I do not, in this Budget, make any call to sacrifice."—[Official Report, 11 April 1978; Vol. 947, cc. 1183–1207.]
As I said, tonight he inflicted on us a short analysis of the financial and economic position of the country as he saw it.
The only crumb of comfort that the Chancellor was able to offer to the House was that sterling was momentarily strong. That, of course, is not the gift of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If anything, it is the gift of the North Sea. There is an uncomfortable parallel—on which I have no doubt the Chief Secretary will remark—between the position of this country and that of our Dutch friends and neighbours whose stagnant industrial position is masked by a strong guilder, again dependent upon North Sea gas.
There is no need tonight to debate what needs to be done in this situation; there will be time enough over the next four

weeks. However, from these Benches I think that we should like to introduce a note of caution, and it will be necessary to see what the books disclose when they are opened on 4 May.
The Finance Bill has generated perhaps a better debate than it really deserves. I should like to echo the sentiments expressed by all right hon. and hon. Members about the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). She made, as always, an impassioned speech, blazing with indignation, and we were privileged to hear a preview of what she will no doubt be giving to the country from the hustings over the next four weeks and, indeed, when she stands for the European Parliament. I have no doubt that we shall miss her personally, even if we do not miss the policies which she has peddled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ciren-cester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) picked up a theme which my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has made particularly his own, and that is the scale of the black economy and the amnesty which apparently has been negotiated between the Inland Revenue and certain trade unions. I should like to come back to that in a moment.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise)—predictably of course—claimed full credit for the amendments which have led to the one change in this Finance Bill. It would, I think, be churlish to deny her or her hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) at least a little credit for the so-called Rooker-Wise amendment. However, I think that they were less than generous to my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), who has been a pioneer as regards indexation. Indeed, I am sure that the Chief Secretary when he replies will recall that he said that since my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby entered this House some four years ago we have debated the subject of indexation "ad nauseam"—to quote the Chief Secretary's words. The principle has been established by my hon. Friends. Indeed, I congratulate the hon. Members for Coventry, South-West and Perry Barr on having picked it up and translated it into an amendment, which with considerable Conservative support was eventually passed into law in the Finance Act 1977.
It gives me particular pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) on his maiden speech. It is perhaps rare for an hon. Member to be introduced in the last week of a Parliament, but it must be unique for an hon. Member to make his maiden speech within three hours of his introduction. I thought that his speech was polished and self-confident. I regret that the pressure of public business will probably prevent us from hearing more from him, at any rate in this Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, we warmed to his tributes to his predecessor, Sir Arthur Irvine, who was a distinguished member of my profession and who made a distinguished contribution in earlier years as Solicitor-General. We also warmed to his timely tribute to Airey Neave, a colleague we all miss in particularly tragic circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman was well advised to pick out two particularly Conservative points, and I congratulate him on his wisdom. He concentrated on home owner-ship—I am happy to find that we share the same platform on that—and on the protection of the community. The hon. Gentleman will find a considerable identity of view between his own position and that of the Conservative Party, which may possibly account for his singular success in Edge Hill. I congratulate him on his wisdom and tactical success, although I am sure those sentiments come from the heart in his case.
I come to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, who speaks with particular authority as one who held distinguished office on the Treasury Bench in the last Conservative Administration. He was right to remind the House of the Chancellor's record, because the Chancellor was singularly coy about doing that himself. He was also right to point out the fatal inconsistency of the Government's policy with regard to cash limits. I have no doubt that the Chief Secretary will wish to revert to that point when he replies.
Finally, my hon. Friend touched on the question of the amnesty which has been given to Fleet Street casual workers. We Conservatives certainly have no objection to a sensible, perhaps a generous, use of the Inland Revenue's powers to negotiate settlements in individual cases. This has been long recognised. The Chief Secre-

tary seems to find this a point of some hilarity, but it must be that he was talking to the Financial Secretary about some other question. This particular move offends every kind of constitutional principle because it appears to have been negotiated by the Inland Revenue with a body of workers and the negotiations have been conducted on behalf of the taxpayers by three trade unions. This offends against any previous known practice of the Inland Revenue.
I hope that the Chief Secretary will make it clear whether these negotiations were carried on with the full knowledge and approval of Treasury Ministers. We Conservatives find it particularly offensive that this amnesty should have been negotiated and implemented at a time when the Inland Revenue has thought it right to lean particularly hard on individual taxpayers and sole traders. It would have been rather more tactful had it considered the impact this would make on the general body of taxpayers, because it was an amnesty for which there was no precedent and very little justification indeed.
I hope that the Chief Secretary will make one point clear—whether the Inland Revenue thought that there was any possibility of recovering the tax from the unions concerned, since they at least held themselves out as providing the labour for which these casual payments were made. This is a point of particular difficulty which we Conservatives find very unattractive.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr could hardly resist coming back to the Rooker-Wise amendment. I think that he was a little ungenerous to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby. At this stage in this Parliament's life, to go through the particular amendments that were debated in those sultry June days of 1977 would be a rather pointless exercise, but briefly, to set the record straight—unless the Financial Secretary will attempt to catch the eye of the Chair and do it for me—

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Mr. Robert Sheldon indicated dissent.

Mr. Rees: Well, he rather shirks that.
We recall, as indeed the country will recall that the amendment was carried against the strong arguments advanced by the Treasury Bench. We should like to know whether Treasury Ministers have


now modified their point of view, whether they feel that this is something which should be incorporated in our fiscal legislation and whether the principle of indexation should be extended, for example, to capital transfer tax, to the threshold for investment income surcharge or to capital gains tax. If they do not, we shall recognise that their conversion has come at a rather late stage and that it is only skin deep.
We had a useful debate in those days in June, but the first amendments that were debated—we can argue whether they were textually different from those which the hon. Members for Perry Barr and for Coventry, South-West commended to the Committee—were moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby. We believe that an important principle has been established through Conservative votes. Indeed, it would perhaps be unkind of me to remind the hon. Member for Perry Barr, since he has not chosen to stay for the rest of the debate, that the Patronage Secretary was at particular pains to exclude him and the hon. Lady from any subsequent Committee stage debates on Finance Bills. Of course, we can only speculate as to the reason why.
With the Rooker-Wise amendment incorporated in this standstill Finance Bill—this is the one divergence from a total standstill in rates and relief—the cost will be £960 million, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) reminded the House. But, even with this particular move, it still does not restore personal allowances to their true value of 1973–74. I remind the House that to do that would cost slightly over £2 billion. Indeed, the country will not forget, even if the Chief Secretary is not disposed to remind it, that in 1973–74 the Government's total revenue take was £17,250 million, of which income tax comprised £7,300 million. In 1978–79, the total tax take was something over £41 billion, of which income tax comprised about £19 billion. That is the true measure of the fiscal policies which the Chancellor and his team have inflicted over five years on a long-suffering country.
This is perhaps the occasion for valedictory addresses. The House should be reminded, because there is perhaps a

tinge of sadness to the contributions on this occasion, that the Chancellor and his Chief Secretary have formed a partnership for the last five years. From these Benches, we have admired the intellectual grasp and stamina of the Chancellor—qualities that were worthy of better causes. We have watched the battle that he has fought with his hon. Friends below the Gangway, and no doubt in due course we shall hear in his memoirs of the battles that he lost in Cabinet. But now he has come to the end of the road. All the options open to him in relation to public expenditure and taxation have been closed by the prejudices of his own party, but they have been prejudices which over the years he has stoked.
I recall that in a speech not so very long ago to a Labour club somewhere in the North-West—who knows, perhaps even in the area of the right hon. Member for Blackburn—reported on 13 March in the Burnley Star, the Chancellor said:
I will offer you proper Socialism when we get a decent majority in the House of Commons to enable us to do it.
The electorate will be able to pronounce on that particularly menacing threat over the next four weeks.
What shall we say about the Chief Secretary, who has played with great fidelity the role of Sancho Panza to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Don Quixote? The Labour Party has always been lucky in the talent that it has been able to command. It has had its own millionaire, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and it has had its tame accountant, in the form of the Chief Secretary. Over the years, we have admired the Chief Secretary's resilience and his mastery of detail. We have enjoyed the comradely wink with which he has managed to convey that, subject to the rather absurd pressures from his own party, he recognised that he was inflicting a series of fiscal outrages on the country.
For the Chief Secretary, this must be a rather poignant moment. He must now be regretting the opportunities that he has missed. I remind him and the House of what he said in our debates in 1977. He may recall the evening of 14 June. It is all reported in Hansard. He said on that occasion:
I hope that the 2p reduction in the basic rate of tax will be possible.


Regrettably, but perhaps predictably, it did not prove possible for that particular Chancellor and that particular Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary went on to say:
I hope that many other things might yet be possible. Between now and October 1979 the Government will have ample opportunity to accept many of my hon. Friends' recommendations about taxation, public expenditure and all kinds of things. I ask the Committee to recognise that this is not the time to take such steps. Let us wait. We shall have ample opportunity to deal with them in our own good time."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 14 June 1977; c. 492–3.]
I know that Latin is unfashionable in the House at present, but I am moved to recall sunt lacrimae rerum—there are tears and things, and no doubt the Chief Secretary will enlarge on that in due course.
I am bound to tell the Chief Secretary, however, before he is overcome with maudlin remorse, that the Opposition have always had doubts about the authenticity, the genuineness, of his desire to lift taxes. We think that the best commentary on his five-year partnership with the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the evidence given by Sir William Pile only last week—that the secondary economy, or what is, perhaps, less charitably called the black economy, is now of the order of £11 billion. The conclusion is inescapable, and that is that no talk of a social wage will be an adequate substitute for our fellow countrymen for a reasonable income after tax. This is a mood to which a Conservative Government will respond. Tonight, in the nature of things, no contribution will be made to that. Tonight, all that we have heard is the last frigid fiscal whimper of a beaten and descredited Government.

7.33 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett): I think that I once said, in reply to a question, "Ugh." It was in reply to that kind of comment. I spelt it "Ugh"—with an exclamation mark, or two. Only the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) could deliver a valedictory address, as he called it, in that way. I think that I thank him for what he said. I am not absolutely certain. I shall read it—no, I shall not.
The hon. and learned Member said that I might consider this to be a poignant

moment. No, I do not consider it to be a poignant moment. What I consider is that, with any luck, I shall never have to listen to the hon. and learned Member, from that Dispatch Box on Finance Bills. That is what I was thinking when I heard him speaking. I hope that he will be on some other subject and that I shall be on some other subject, so that I shall not personally have to hear him paying me compliments of the kind which he pays so eloquently.
However, be that as it may, I start by joining very sincerely in the congratulations that have been offered to the hon. Member for Alton. It was an excellent maiden speech. I am sorry. I meant to say "The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton)". I hope that I may be forgiven for that mistake, because I have seen the hon. Member's name so frequently recently. I was looking at it on television for about two hours on Thursday night. The only consolation was hearing of the lost Conservative deposit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, as we always say on these occasions, that we look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman frequently in this House. My hon. Friend was saying that he hoped to hear the hon. Gentleman as the hon. Member for Edge Hill. I do not quite go along with that. I should like to see a Labour Member representing Edge Hill. However, for wherever the hon. Member may sit—and I hope that if he wins a seat at some other time, and in another place, it will be a Conservative seat—I am sure that all of us will want to hear him frequently and the kind of speech that he delivered in the House today.
I also take this opportunity of paying tribute to the swan song delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). I have had a few exchanges of pleasantries with my right hon. Friend, particularly in the past five years and especially in the period 1974 to 1976, when she was a very excellent Secretary of State for Social Services. From time to time I had to resist her constant demands for more expenditure. I am happy to say that we finished up good friends, even if she did not finish up with quite as much money as she asked me for in the first place. However, as


has been said, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has made a quite magnificent contribution to public life in Britain from 1945 onwards, and particularly to the Labour Party and Labour Governments over many years.
Speaking for myself, I am very grateful for that contribution and I happily pay a very high tribute to her for the work that she has done, particularly in the cause of women, and, not least, for what she has done to persuade the House of Commons, the Labour Party, the trade union movement and the country generally to recognise the value of child benefits, which have now been brought to fruition in this Finance Bill, which has phased out child tax allowances and introduced child benefits. [Interruption]. I have sat and listened to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) when he has been speaking on his feet. I am not quite sure which I prefer—the hon. Member muttering from a sedentary position or hearing him when he is on his feet. But I do not wish to encourage him tonight. Perhaps I dislike both. The hon. Gentleman really is intolerable. In some ways he is even more intolerable than his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal—and that is really saying something, as my hon. Friends who have had to listen to both of them will know.
I also take this opportunity of saying that, with any luck, this might be a swan song for me on Finance Bills, certainly in this Parliament. I have been on every Finance Bill Committee, whether on the Floor of the House or upstairs, for the past 15 years. I should like to think that I shall be discussing Finance Bills for another 15 years or more, but in this Parliament at least I expect that this will be my last contribution on a Finance Bill. One of the reasons why I look forward to watching the hon. Member for Blaby signing his mail to his dear constituents rather than speaking in the House is that this is the last Finance Bill of this Parliament.
I turn to some of the contributions to the debate, and first to those from the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), and that from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), on the subject of what has happened in

Fleet Street in relation to taxation. This was also referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal.
A fascinating new idea was floated by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr—that maybe all these moonlighters of Fleet Street were really inspectors of taxes working there because they did not have enough work to do during the day, that they were working at nights and at weekends to make up the miserly pay that they now get. It is an interesting proposition, but the fact is that, by the very nature of things, one does not know who was Mickey Mouse, as a number of pay slips were then signed, as being the particular casual worker concerned. However, I feel that when the hon. and learned Member for Dover, and Deal said that perhaps the trade unions should be expected to pay the tax that was lost he was on a rather bad point and should, just for once, have listened to his hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. The hon. Member said in the House on 16 January:
I think it is fair to say that the practice has arisen over the years because management has opted out of the control of labour in the newspaper industry, particularly in the printing of the Sunday newspapers."—[Official Report, 16 January 1979; Vol. 960, c. 1514.]
Management was responsible for filling in the pay slips marked "Mickey Mouse" and should bear some responsibility. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury was right at least in that sense.
I do not want to see any sort of evasion continue for longer than necessary. The problem is to identify the people concerned. The only negotiation was to identify them and ensure that from now on tax was deducted. It was necessary to obtain the names and addresses of the individuals who were being paid, and that could only be done in co-operation with management and the trade unions. There was no question of negotiation with the trade unions about whether there should be an amnesty, and there is no blanket amnesty.
Tax relief prior to April 1977 was granted on two strict and limited conditions. Without the co-operation of the trade union movement and the employers, it would not have been possible to cut out the evasion, and the negotiation was was to identify the people involved. The unions were informed what the Inland


Revenue intended to do to stop the abuse, but there was no question of a blanket amnesty without conditions.
Sub-contractors on the lump have received similar treatment The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury complained about that comparable treatment, but he wanted to make it easier for the people on the lump to continue tax evasion. Throughout the whole of this Parliament, the hon. Gentleman has pressed for relaxation of the schemes that we introduced to cut out tax evasion among sub-contractors. He now has the effrontery to complain that we are giving an amnesty in this area, and I find it astonishing that the hon. Member for Worthing, with his experience, should get on to that bandwagon. What has been said is without foundation. The hon. Member for Worthing wants to cut out evasion, and so do I, but we must first identify the people who were obtaining large sums of money tax-free.
The Board of Inland Revenue is responsible for collecting taxes. It told us the action being considered, but it has the responsibility and discretion in the way that the taxes are collected. It would be a foolish income tax system that did not allow the Inland Revenue some discretion. There has been criticism of that approach compared to the Government's attitude to the self-employed.

Mr. Higgins: The letter that was written by the Inland Revenue to the trade unions said specifically that the arrangements would only apply to members of SOGAT, the NGA and so on. The letter written by the Financial Secretary also said that there had been no general negotiation. It had been with individuals. From what the right hon. Gentleman has said, it is quite clear that the Government and the Inland Revenue did not know who the individuals were.

Mr. Barnett: I am sure that the hon. Member for Worthing will appreciate that the Inland Revenue could not have known who the individuals were. It merely had pay packets marked with ridiculous names. The only way to find the names and addresses was with the co-operation of the trade unions and employers, which was a perfectly reasonable approach. That applies also to many other cases of self-employed people

where it is not possible to collect tax and the situation is hopeless. If there is no way of pursuing it to the nth degree, it is not pursued.
The fear is frequently expressed that income tax inspectors sometimes exceed their authority in dealing with the self-employed. In the past I have acted on behalf of the self-employed, but I think that that criticism is grossly exaggerated. If ever I knew of a case of an income tax inspector exceeding his authority with an individual, even where there has been a tax evasion, I would consider it reprehensible. It should be stopped.

Mr. Peter Rees: Does the Chief Secretary know of another case where an amnesty has been implemented for a defined group of people rather than for individuals? Secondly, since he has drawn the analogy with the lump, will he admit that there is a closer analogy? In the case of the lump, the person who procures the labour is ultimately responsible for the tax. The trade unions were involved in this particular case because they procured the labour. Should not the Inland Revenue therefore consider whether the trade unions concerned might not ultimately be responsible for the tax?

Mr. Barnett: That would be most unreasonable. One might consider making the employers responsible when they pay money without deducting tax to individuals who they know are not casual workers. The hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal mentions a defined group of people rather than individuals. It was a defined group of people in the newspaper industry, and it was the only way to handle the matter.
In back-duty cases where there is an investigation, sometimes some tax inspectors may be pretty tough on a taxpayer. I deplore excesses, but on the facts it is not shown that those excesses are prevalent. Since the Inland Revenue started the in-depth examination of the self-employed and small businesses, 88 per cent. of cases have been accepted without further inquiry. Of the remaining 12 per cent., only 3 per cent. were subjected to full investigation. In 80 per cent. of that 3 per cent. something was found to be considerably wrong. The Inland Revenue must act in the best interests of the taxpayer generally, and it is right that those cases should be investigated, but they are only a tiny proportion.
I turn to the main point dealt with in this debate—that which has become known, to the chagrin of the hon. Member for Blaby, as the Rooker-Wise amendment I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Perry Barr and Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) for the action that they took. I did not agree with them at the time, I do not agree with them now, and I will not attempt to hide that from them. This might be described as the "Whips' amendment". It was because of the Whips that my hon. Friends were on that Finance Bill Committee. Had they not been there, we might not have lost on the issue.
I disagreed with my hon. Friends because I was not in favour of the indexation of personal tax allowances. I am not necessarily in favour of arguing for a substantial increase in the tax threshold. For example, I would not like to say that if I had £1,000 million to spare at any time my first choice would be to raise the tax threshold. There may well be other priorities for me—the priority of child benefit, as put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, more money for the National Health Service and all kinds of other things which I consider should have priority. I hope that when we come back after the election my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West will be here, because she is an excellent Member and she has argued for the amendment becaue she believes in it.

Mrs. Wise: In order that there should be no misunderstanding, I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at the level of the threshold at which my hon. Friend and I moved our amendment. We were not arguing in a vacuum. We were arguing from the starting point of the threshold being considerably below the supplementary benefit level. I agree that a lot of priority must be given to other forms of disbursement of money, particularly public expenditure, on services and cash transfers.

Mr. Barnett: Perhaps there is not much disagreement between us after all. Of course I want to raise the threshold and increase personal allowances.
I was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal about my position on indexation. I have made that clear. He then asked me whether

I was in favour of extending indexation to capital transfer tax and various other taxes on the statute book. I am not in favour of such indexation, but I would be interested to know the policy of the Opposition on this matter.

Mr. Lawson: Wait and see.

Mr. Barnett: The hon. Member for Blaby says "Wait and see". Therefore, we do not know whether it is Opposition policy to index all taxes. I know that it is the policy of the hon. Member for Blaby, and I know that he has inflicted his opinions on his Front Bench ad nauseam.
I conclude on the central theme of the Opposition—the need for massive cuts in direct taxation. As I have indicated, I am in favour of some cut as soon as we can afford it, and, unlike some of my hon. Friends, I would not be averse to some switch from direct to indirect taxation. However, I am not in favour of a switch of anything like the degree required if the Opposition are to carry out in any way the twin propositions they have put before us—cutting the public sector borrowing requirement year after year, and making substantial reductions in direct taxation.
I believe that speeches promising things like that do a disservice to truth and honesty in political life. They lead people to believe that there can be some real improvement in their personal living standard brought about by a cut in direct taxation, regardless of whatever else happens in the economy. That is a disservice to public life. By switching from direct to indirect taxation one could do that to a certain extent but not to the extent that the Opposition indicate. The effect on inflation would cause chaos in this country and enormous disturbance. It is a disservice to suggest that it could be done without an improvement in real output and to imply that the people of this country can expect a real increase in living standards, other than giving that increase to a few at the expense of many other people.
But that is what a Conservative Government would have in mind—improving living standards for some at the expense of others. That is what it is all about. If one cut public expenditure and increased indirect taxation in order to provide cuts in direct taxes, it could only be done at somebody's expense, and that would create a divided society.
Fortunately, I do not believe that there will be a Conservative Government, I believe that the next Budget and the next Finance Bill will be introduced by a Labour Chancellor who will make a redistribution of income in a way that the country wants.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House; immediately considered in Committee pursuant to Order this day; reported, without amendment.

Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

APPROPRIATION

Ordered,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament; that, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of bills of aids and supplies, more than one stage of any Bill brought in pursuant to this Order may be proceeded with at this day's sitting; and that so soon as any such Bill has been read a second time the House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.— [Mr. Bates.]

BILL PRESENTED

APPROPRIATION

Mr. Robert Sheldon, supported by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Joel Barnett and Mr. Denzil Davies, accordingly presented a Bill to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament: And the same was read the First time, and ordered to be printed [Bill 132].

Bill read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House; immediately considered in Committee pursuant to Order this day; reported, without amendment.

Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Giles Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was in your hearing, and in the hearing of the Minister, that earlier today, at the end of Question Time, a point of order was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) concerning the price order for beds which was considered by the Statutory Instruments Committee and found to be incorrect. Mr. Speaker ruled that such an order should no longer be held as viable. Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection to make a statement before the House rises as to the legal position on that instrument?

8 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John Fraser): I have not anything to add at present, but I shall try to ensure that inquiries are made about the order relating to beds and seek to say something, if possible, before the House rises.

New Clause 1,

ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT

' (1) It shall be the duty of the Unit—

(a) to keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts; and
(b) to prepare in respect of each accounting year, in such form as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury direct, a statement of those accounts; and
(c) to send the statement to the auditors for the time being appointed in pursuance of this subsection and to do so within six months beginning with the last day of the accounting year to which the statement relates;

and the accounts kept and the statement prepared in pursuance of this subsection shall be audited by auditors appointed by the Treasury.
(2) As soon as the accounts and statement of accounts of the Unit for any accounting year have been audited, the Unit shall send to the Secretary of State a copy of the statement and a copy of any report made by the auditors on the statement or on the accounts of the Unit, and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to lay before each House of Parliament a copy of every statement and report of which a copy is received by him in pursuance of this subsection.


(3) On and after 1st April 1980 the preceding provisions of this section shall have effect with the following amendments—

(a) in subsection (1) the words from "in such" to "direct" in paragraph (b) shall be omitted and for the words "appointed by the Treasury" there shall be substituted the words "appointed by the Unit";
(b) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—

(1A) A person shall not be qualified to be so appointed unless he is a member of one or more of the following bodies—
the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales;
the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland;
the Association of Certified Accountants;
the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland;
any other body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and for the time being recognised for the purposes of section 161(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1948 by the Secretary of State;
but a Scottish firm may be so appointed if each of the partners in the firm is qualified to be so appointed.;

(c) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

(2) It shall be the duty of the Unit to include, in the first report it makes in pursuance of section 9 of this Act after the accounts and statement of accounts of the Unit for any accounting year have been audited, a copy of the statement and of any report made by the auditors on the statement or the accounts.
(4) The Secretary of State may, before 1st April 1980 or any later date for the time being specified in the preceding subsection by virtue of this subsection, direct that the preceding subsection shall have effect with the substitution for the reference to the date there specified of a later date specified in the direction.
(5) In this section "accounting year" means the period of twelve months ending with 31st March in any year except that a particular accounting year shall, if the Secretary of State so directs, be such other period not longer than two years as is specified in the direction.'.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This clause is concerned with auditing. It provides that audits on the lines of Government audits should take place until 31 March 1980, when the unit will be in receipt of direct grant from central Gov-

ernment. Thereafter, when it is expected that the matter will pass to the control of the local authorities, the audit arrangements will accord with those relating to local authority organisations.
There is a provision to continue the Government-type audit, but the local authority associations can be assured that the Secretary of State can only use his powers to vary the date of coming into force of the modification in subsection (3) if, contrary to expectations, grant-in-aid continues beyond 1 April 1980.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 2

ENFORCEMENT

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No 1, in page 5, line 18, at end insert
'; and if the packer of a relevant package which is inadequate, and which was made up by him in the course of carrying out arrangements with another person for the packer to make up packages, delivers the package to or to the order of a person to whom it falls to be delivered in pursuance of the arrangements, the packer shall be guilty of an offence.'.
This clears up a slight gap in the Bill, and makes it an offence for a contract packer to have in possession for sale an inadequate package, even though he does not intend to sell it. The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) pointed to this gap in the Bill, and this amendment puts the matter right.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

FUNCTIONS OF UNIT

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 10, line2, at end insert
'and about such other matters as the Unit considers appropriate in connection with the operation of this Part of this Act'.
The Committee wanted the unit to be able to give advice. This amendment enables it to do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10

POWER TO EXTEND OR TRANSFER UNIT'S FUNCTIONS AND TO ABOLISH UNIT

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 14, line 5, at end insert—
'(3A) If the Secretary of State proposes to make an order in pursuance of this section it shall be his duty, before he makes the order, to consult a body which in his opinion represents such local authorities (within the meaning of section 6(2) of this Act) as he considers appropriate in connection with the proposal.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 4.

Mr. Fraser: The Committee wanted provision for LACOTS and/or the local authority associations to be consulted before any audit is made under clause 10. This amendment deals with that position.
Amendment No. 4, deals with the affirmative resolution procedure.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 14, line 11, leave out from 'instrument' to end of line 16 and insert
'but no order shall be made by virtue'.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Clause 16

APPROVED PATTERNS OF EQUIPMENT FOR USE FOR TRADE

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 20, line 26, after ' payment', insert
', except in such cases as the Secretary of State may determine,'.
This amendment enables the Secretary of State not to charge for the renewal of certificates.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 20, line 30, at end insert—
' (1A) Where such an application as is mentioned in paragraph (c) of the last foregoing subsection is made for the renewal of a certificate mentioned in that subsection, the certificate shall continue in force until the Secretary of State gives to the applicant, in such manner as may be prescribed, notice of the Secretary of State's decision with respect to the application.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to take with this Government amendments Nos. 11 and 12.

Mr. John Fraser: These amendments provide that, where there is an application for the renewal of a certificate, the original certificate shall remain in force until the renewal application has been dealt with one way or the other.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 20, line 44, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
There was some criticism in Committee that the whole of the machine might be kept in deposit by my weights and measures department. The purpose of requiring deposit provisions is that sometimes it is extremely difficult to describe in words an electronic device. The clause has been softened by a provision to the effect that we shall only require deposit in regard to parts of equipment. It is only for that purpose that this provision applies where such a device cannot be described in the English language.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Will the Minister confirm one point? He seems to have accepted entirely in regard to earlier provisions the representations made by the weights and measures industry about equipment. Will he confirm that the industry is now entirely satisfied with the provisions as listed in the Bill?

Mr. John Fraser: In so far as anybody is entirely satisfied, I believe that the industry can be said to be so satisfied.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 10, in page 21, line 2, leave out 'equipment or'.

No. 11, in page 21, line 13, after' time' insert
or by virtue of a notice under subsection (1A) of this section'.

No. 12, in page 22, line 18, at end insert ' subsection (1A) or'.—(Mr. John Fraser.)

Clause 18

BEER AND CIDER

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 23, line 7, leave out subsection (1).
This is one of the parts of the Bill in relation to which it was impossible to reach agreement. Therefore, I move this amendment to put the position in order.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The Minister would be surprised if I allowed the amendment to be passed on the nod like other amendments in the Bill. He will be aware that clause 18 has caused much discussion and dissension both in Committee and in the trade and the licensing authorities.
Clause 18(1) deals with the introduction of lined glasses, and many authorities will be delighted to hear that it is to be omitted. There are other aspects of the clause which we shall consider, but we welcome the Government decision to remove clause 18(1). That decision came about in a peculiar way—in relation to the judgments made in the Scottish courts and the other arrangements made within clause 18 as a whole.
There has been considerable discussion on whether clause 18 should be omitted from the Bill. The Minister has argued that it is important for clause 18(2) to remain, allowing for the liquid measure. It is only fair to say that Opposition Members confidently expect that they shall be able to influence the regulations flowing from the Bill and will take a different view from the present Administration. We should be most unlikely to enact clause 18(2) as presently drafted—not without the fullest possible consideration of the problems raised by the Guinness company and other stout manufacturers.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I am delighted to see that clause 18(1) is to be omitted. I should declare a non-interest to the House. I am one of those rare birds in Cornwall—a member of the Church of England and teetotal. I have never drunk a pint of beer in my life and I have certainly never pulled one. It was my total lack of knowledge of the clause which aroused my interest in the difference between a line and a brim glass. The more I thought about the difference, the less convinced I became of the logic behind the change and the desire for it.
As a result, I circulated every public house in my constituency and I was staggered to see that they amounted to 274. I outlined the arguments for the changes

and asked the customers of the public houses to indicate whether they were in favour of the change. There was one signature in favour of the change and about 900 or 1,000 signatures against it. It is interesting to see how such a change can get so near to the statute book when there is no desire among my beer drinking constituents for the change. I assure the Minister that, being teetotal, I am among the minority in my constituency.
The change would cost money and it is a minor example of how Government bureaucracy apportions an increase in cost on the public. I am delighted at its withdrawal. I was uncertain how to argue the case against it with the present state of Parliament. However, I know that I am on a winning streak when the Minister has proposed the withdrawal.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3

FURTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO CONSTITUTION OF METROLOGICAL CO-ORDINATING UNIT

8.15 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 28, line 7, at end insert—
'(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the Secretary of State's power to give notices in pursuance of the preceding sub-paragraph, it shall be his duty to give a member such a notice if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the member is no longer a member of any local authority '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take Govment amendments Nos. 17, 18 19 and 20.

Mr. Fraser: The purpose of the amendments is to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to give notice of termination to a unit member upon his ceasing to be an elected member of the local authority. I was asked to amend the Bill in Committee in this way and I have accordingly done so. It is intended that the units described in the Bill will be the local authority's committee on trading standards. Since that does not exist as a legal entity, it is not possible to describe it as such in the Bill. Therefore, I should like to give two further assurances which cannot be written into the Bill.
First, it is the intention to stick firmly to the LACOTS committee's proposals.


Any member of the unit who ceases to be a member of the committee will also be given notice under the clause. The local authority associations can rest assured that the other controls in the clause are not designed to prevent the unit from enjoying the same freedom of action as a local authority in respect of staffing and conditions of service.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I should like to confirm our understanding of the case put to us by the Association of Municipal Authorities. This is what we should like to see done. We give an assurance that it shall be done if we are in Government at the time.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 17, in page 28. line 24, leave out
'such persons as it considers
and insert
', on such terms as are applicable to comparable employment in the service of a local authority, such persons as'.

No. 18, in page 28, line 25, leave out from 'functions' to end of paragraph.

No. 19, in page 28, line 36, after 'member'", insert
', except in relation to a local authority.'.

No. 20, in page 28, line 37, at end add
'and "local authority" has the same meaning as in section 6(2) of this Act'.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 5

OTHER AMENDMENTS OF PRINCIPAL ACT

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 33, line 25. leave out 'or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 23.

Mr. Fraser: The amendments put right the accidental omission of a reference to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which is the counterpart of the 1972 Act for England.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 23, in page 33, line 25, after '1972', insert
or section 56 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973'—[Mr John Fraser.]

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 37, line 24, at end insert ' or a licensed canteen'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 25.

Mr. Fraser: The effect of the amendments is to apply the rules about spirit glasses to canteens as well as public houses.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 37, line 25 after ' 1964', insert
'or the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976'.—[Mr John Fraser.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 6

APPLICATION TO NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 39, line 3, after '10' insert ' (Accounts and audit)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 27 to 31.

Mr. Fraser: The amendments are drafting amendments to deal with Northern Ireland. I shall explain them if I am pressed, but I hope that I shall not be.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I ask the Minister not to explain the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made, No. 27, in page 39, line 11, after '1', insert '(2) and'.

No. 28, in page 39, line 25, column 1, after '11' insert:
'(except the reference in section 13(1))'.

No. 29, in page 39, line 42, leave out 'section 1(8)(b)' and insert:
'section 1, in subsection (2) and subsection (8)(b)'

No. 30, in page 41, line 2, leave out ' and '.

No. 31, in page 41, line 4, at end insert:
'and the words from "or, in the case" onwards shall be omitted'.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

LEASEHOLD REFORM BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

8.20 p.m.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Before I call the first amendment, I should inform the House that two manuscript amendments have been handed in by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). Copies are available at the Table and in the Vote Office. When amendment No. 1 is disposed of, the next group will be Nos. 2, 3, 4, the right hon. Gentleman's two manuscript amendments and Nos. 8 and 9. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will not seek to move his amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7.

Clause 1

PRICE TO TENANT ON ENFRANCHISEMENT

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, after 'favourable', insert 'to that tenant'.
I am obliged to you, Mr. Godman Irvine, for the acceptance of my manuscript amenedments to a later part of the Bill.
Amendment No. 1 is a drafting amendment to make the clause a little clearer. The phrase in clause 1
the price payable on a conveyance for giving effect to that section cannot be made less favourable
obviously means less favourable to the tenant. In order to clear up that point, my amendment proposes insertion of the words "to that tenant".

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I am advised that the opening words of the clause
As against a tenant in possession
make clear that the purpose of the Bill is to protect the tenant in possession rather than to protect the landlord and that no amendment is therefore needed. The insertion of the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would mean that the clause said the same thing twice.

Mr. Page: I notice that in a later amendment in the name of the Secretary of State the words that I propose, namely,
less favourable to the tenant
are used. I do not think that the first line of the clause makes clear whether"less favourable"refers to the tenant or the landlord. I ask the Minister to look at the matter again. I am endeavouring to put the matter beyond doubt.

Mr. Armstrong: I appreciate the spirit in which the right hon. Member approaches this matter, but I assure him that all the advice that I have received is that the amendment is not necessary and that the purpose that he seeks is covered.

Mr. Page: In the light of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 8. leave out ' 18th February 1966' and insert ' 15th February 1979'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 3, in page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'(4) If the tenant has claimed before the commencement date and the claim has been withdrawn either—

(a) following a determination of price not subject to subsection (1) and therefore less favourable to the tenant; or
(b) without any determination, in circumstances where the determination would have been less favourable because not so subject,

section 9(3)(b) of the 1967 Act does not apply to avoid a further claim on or after the commencement date, though made within five years.'

No. 4, in page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (4).

A manuscript amendment, in page 1, leave out lines 14 to 16.

A manuscript amendment, in page 2, leave out subsection (5).

No. 8, in page 2, line 17, at end add—
'(6) In the case of a property where the freehold is owned by a registered charity, the reference to 18th February 1966 contained in Clause 1, subsection (1), shall be read as 15th February 1979.'.

No. 9, in page 2, line 17, at end add—
'(6) Where the freehold is owned by a registered charity, this Act shall not apply.'.

Mr. Page: If amendment No. 2 is accepted, the last three lines of subsection (2) will be inappropriate. The manuscript amendment to leave out lines 14 to 16 therefore goes together with amendment No. 2.
Amendment No. 4 would leave out subsection (4) and, if that is agreed to, we shall need the consequential manuscript amendment leaving out subsection (5). If subsection (5) is left out, my amendments Nos. 5 to 7 will be unnecessary.
Amendment No. 2 alters the date included in clause 1. The courts have decided that if a ground landlord inserts into the title of a long leasehold dwelling house, between his title and that of the ground tenant, an intermediate lease of a certain sort and under a certain formula, he can force up the price payable by the tenant to enfranchise the house.
I raise no objection to that transaction being made ineffective for the future in order to prevent the price of enfranchisement for the tenant being increased, but I object to such a transaction being invalidated retrospectively.
The Committee is being asked to act, in the course of that invalidation, as a court of appeal and to set aside a judgment. The Bill is short and it looks insignificant, but it breaches two major constitutional principles: first, that legislation should not be retrospective, and, secondly, that Parliament should not interfere with judicial decisions.
That could be put right by looking merely to the future and saying that the sort of intermediate lease used in the case decided by the court should not affect the price if it is entered into after the public knew the intentions of the Government, that is, after a date following the publication of the Bill.
When we have retrospective legislation in tax law, the public have been warned by a Government statement that they intend to amend the law. There has been no such statement in this case and the courts decided the case only recently. The first that anyone knew, for certain, of legislation to alter the position under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 was when the Bill was published.
In order not to breach those constitutional principles that there should be no retrospective legislation and that Parliament should not interfere with court deci-

sions, I propose to insert the date 15 February 1979 in place of 18 February 1966.
If that amendment is accepted, the last three lines of subsection (2) would be inappropriate. If the House accepts the principle that we should not interfere, by legislation, with a decided case, although we may wish to reform the law for the future, subsections (4) and (5), which give the right of the litigant who lost that case to recover from this House as a court of appeal, should also go.

Mr. Armstrong: We are conducting the Committee proceedings in unusual circumstances in this Parliament.
I appreciate the problems and also the co-operation of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), but as this is such an important issue, and the amendment involves the date, I should put on record the Government's view. The effect of the amendment would be to exempt from the beneficial provisions of this Bill any transaction of the kind involved in the Jones v. Wentworth case—the cause of the Bill being presented—which took place before the date of the First Reading of the Bill.
8.30 p.m.
The amendment would remove from the proper protection of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 those who are most in need of the protection of this Bill—Mrs. Jones, the appellant in the case, her neighbours, who are in a similar position, and anyone else whose landlord has indulged in transactions of this kind. It would enable the landlords involved to demand far more than was envisaged as the price for the freehold—£4,000 rather than £300, in Mrs. Jones's case, at present-day prices, though the discrepancy will increase over time, thus effectively excluding the proper operation of the 1967 Act. Such leaseholders would thus be prevented from acquiring the freeholds of their houses at a fair and reasonable price, and landlords would be able to retain the considerable advantages accruing to them as a result.
In the Government view, the Bill, thus amended, would be much weaker. We do not accept that the Bill, as it stands, is retrospective in the sense in which that word is commonly used of legislation. It is no more retrospective than the 1967 Act or any of the amendments made to it


in 1969 and 1974, all of which applied to leases regardless of when they were created.
The Bill, as drafted, changes one of the expected effects of past transactions but does not reopen them. In doing so, it follows the line taken in much of the legislation relating to housing and property, not only the Leasehold Reform Act itself but the Rent Acts and Housing Acts as well. All these measures can be described as retrospective in that they alter an existing state of affairs. But it is our contention they do not set any dangerous precedents.
The Bill follows the principle which is even employed for taxation legislation by stopping someone from enjoying an advantage for the future of a dubious transaction but allowing that person to retain any advantage already achieved. An example occurs in section 48 of the Finance Act 1977, which made certain annual payments non-deductible for purposes of assessing tax. In relation to future events, it takes away the benefit of a past transaction. Subsection (5) specifically applies the provision to future payments irrespective of when the liability to make the payment was incurred.
If the amendment is carried, it will effectively create at least one area where the leasehold reform legislation operates differently from the rest of the country and where leaseholders are prejudiced more than anyone else by the absence of a provision in the 1967 Act which the Law Lords themselves agreed would have been there if anyone had foreseen the type of transaction that has been employed in this case.
In putting on record the Government view that the Bill is not retrospective in the general sense applied to legislation, I ask the right hon. Gentleman, even at this stage, to consider carefully what he has said and to see whether he can withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Ian Percival: My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and I have listened to what the Minister has said. There is a difference of approach here. We do not accept what he said about the merits, but, apart from the merits, on the element of retrospection we take the view that what the Government intend here—this is clear

from the Second Reading speech of the Minister for Housing and Construction—is to reverse a decision of the highest court in the land. That is the worst kind of retrospection in our view—depriving a litigant, whatever the merits may be, of a decision obtained in the courts of the land.
There is a question of constitutional principle here and for that reason my right hon. Friend and I feel that we should advise our right hon. and hon. Friends to stick to this amendment and to press for its acceptance by the Committee.

Mr. Armstrong: I have listened with some care to the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). It is clear that if the Bill is to be enacted in order to block a loophole for the future, I must, reluctantly, accept the amendment. However, I give this pledge—that, when we are returned to office we shall take steps to include this provision in the Housing Bill which we shall present.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Do I take it that the Minister is not pressing amendment No. 2?

Mr. Armstrong: Perhaps I could go on to the other amendments which are being discussed at the same time.
Amendment No. 3 was drafted so as to widen the category of leaseholder who would have been able to reapply for his freehold within the customary five years. As a consequence, however, of the decision to accept amendment No. 2, the circumstances envisaged in subsections (4) and (5) will not now arise. It therefore becomes necessary to delete them. The words at the end of subsection (2)? referred to in one of the manuscript amendments, also become redundant. I therefore propose not to move amendment No. 3 and not to resist amendment No. 4 or the two manuscript amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Manuscript amendment made: in page 1, leave out lines 14 to 16.

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (4).

Manuscript amendment made: in page 2, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

CARRIAGE BY AIR AND ROAD BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

8.40 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
My noble Friend Lord Jacques dealt with this matter at considerable length on 13 February. I have nothing to add to the arguments he then adduced.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Bryan Davies.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Under the terms of the Order of the House of 30 March, further proceedings of the Bill stand postponed.

WAYS AND MEANS

CARRIAGE BY AIR AND ROAD

Resolved,

That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable effect to be given to

provisions of certain protocols signed at Montreal on 25 September 1975 it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Consolidated Fund of fees received by the Treasury for certificates issued in pursuance of that Act.—[Mr. Clinton Davis.]

CARRIAGE BY AIR AND ROAD BILL [Lords]

Postponed proceedings resumed.

Considered in Committee pursuant to Order [30 March].

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

SHORT TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 8, line 41, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Clinton Davis.]

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, with an amendment; as amended, considered.

Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

[Quene's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent on behalf of the Principality and the Stewartry of Scotland, signified].

Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

SEA FISHERIES

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the White Fish Subsidy (Deep Sea Vessels) (Specified Ports) Scheme 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15 March, be approved.—[Mr. Bishop.]

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: The Joint Committee has called the attention of the House to the statutory instrument.
The scheme refers to the vessels fishing for white fish from three specified ports—Fleetwood, Grimsby and Hull. To that extent, it does not seem to be within the relevant section of the parent provision, section 49(1) of the Act under which the order is made and which provides for Ministers dealing with the owners or charterers of vessels.
The scheme is made by three Ministers. It seems that the intention of the Act is that it should cover the whole of the country and that there should be no discrimination in favour of any ports. Usually, if a statute gives a Minister the power to discriminate, it states that specifically. There is no such provision in the parent Act. Under those circumstances, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments said that it was an unusual but expected use of the power and that it might be held by the courts to be ultra vires.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): I am grateful for the observations of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). The Government have noted the observations of the Joint Committee on this scheme, and I am sure that hon. Members would wish to join me in thanking the Committee for its careful and vigilant examination of the scheme.
We agree with the observations of the Joint Committee that an unusual use of the powers conferred by the statute is made by this scheme in so far as this is the first scheme restricting grant to the users of particular ports.
Since 1970 the sea fishing industry has been beset by many problems, all of them familiar to this House. In particular, the deep sea sector has had to face unusual difficulties which could not have been foreseen in 1970.
I have indicated that the situation which led to my right hon. Friend's announcement on 7 December was one requiring the most urgent action, and that is why this temporary and exceptional scheme has been brought before the House.
While it is arguable that the scheme is ultra vires, it is also arguable that it is intra vires, given that section 49 of the Act is very widely drawn, and the Government remain of the view that the scheme is intra vires. The Government will, however, take full note of the comments of the Joint Committee and bear them in mind should it be necessary to seek parliamentary approval for further schemes under section 49 of the Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the White Fish Subsidy (Deep Sea Vessels) (Specified Ports) Scheme 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15 March, be approved.

DIPLOMATIC AND INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

Motion made, and Question proposed.

That the draft INMARSAT (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 29 March, be approved.—[Mr. Judd.]

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I wish to call attention to the rubric on the Order Paper that the instrument has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It was so considered this afternoon and no special attention was called to it. It may be convenient if I say that the same applies to the next motion relating to the Elections (Welsh Forms) Regulations.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): May I take this opportunity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of confirming what the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said, and of thanking the Committee for the work it did in giving the matter its attention.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft INMARSAT (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 29 March, be approved.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

Resolved,

That the Elections (Welsh Forms) Regulations 1979, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2 April, be approved.—[Mr. John.]

NANTES AIRCRAFT CRASH

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan Davies.]

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Robin Hodgson: I am pleased to have the opportunity this evening to raise with the Minister the subject of the Nantes air disaster and the compensation paid to relatives of British victims of that tragedy.
The accident at Nantes occurred on 5 March 1973, six years and one month ago. In all, 66 people were killed, of whom 46 were British. So far, the relatives of the British victims have received only the compensation payable under the Warsaw convention, which amounts in most cases to about £9,000.
I raise this question specifically on behalf of Mrs. Bess Wilson, of Tunbridge Wells, whose husband, David, was a personal friend of mine and was killed in the crash. I have mentioned this matter to Mrs. Wilson's constituency Member, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew), and I have his permission to raise the matter here this evening. I know that many other hon. Members are concerned about this accident, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) and Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley). They have a particular interest in the Minister's reply.
At the time of the crash, David Wilson was aged 38. His wife was aged 42. He had two children—Julie, aged 11, and John, aged nine. He was managing director-elect of an office equipment company and had a bright career prospect before him. He boarded a scheduled Iberia flight on a DC9 in Palma to fly to London. At about the same time in Madrid, 81 British holidaymakers were boarding a Spantax, Spanish air charter airline, Coronado on a non-scheduled charter

flight, also to London. The route of both planes took them over the radio beacon at Nantes, in France.
At the time to which I refer—March 1973—the civilian air traffic controllers in France were on strike and had been replaced by military air traffic controllers, members of the French armed forces under the instructions of the Government.
Two important and tragic consequences arose from that decision. The first was that the military air traffic controllers were not familiar with the usage and terminology employed in world civilian air traffic. Secondly, the equipment that they were using was in some senses less efficient and less well maintained than that available to the civilian personnel.
The Spantax airliner was flying 20 minutes ahead of schedule, and therefore it had the same time of arrival over the Nantes radio beacon as the Iberia DC9. Until 22 minutes from the Nantes radio beacon the two airliners were at different heights. But, 22 minutes out from the beacon, the air traffic control told the Spantax pilot to lose height, and put him at the same altitude as the scheduled Iberia DC9 flight. From that moment on, a collision was inevitable.
The normal procedure when planes are due to arrive at a similar point at the same time is to order one of them to change height again. On this occasion, the air traffic control merely ordered the pilot of the Spantax airliner to delay his arrival over the Nantes radio beacon by eight minutes. That order was initially given 13 minutes out from the Nantes radio beacon. But, because the air traffic controller was not familiar with international air traffic usage, he did not confirm the order. It was only nine minutes out from the beacon that he finally confirmed the order to the Spantax pilot to lose eight minutes.
It is impossible to lose eight minutes flying time in nine minutes elapsed time, because a plane will not have the momentum to carry itself forward—it will stall. Normally, in such circumstances planes will fly what is known as a racetrack. They turn to starboard out of the traffic lane, fly back down the outside of the traffic lane and rejoin it when they have lost the amount of time required. If a plane wishes to lose eight minutes, it will fly a racetrack which has four minutes


on each side to bring it back eight minutes later to the point at which it started.
Having been given the order nine minutes out from the Nantes radio beacon, the Spantax pilot did not immediately request permission to fly a racetrack and for six minutes, from nine minutes out to three minutes out from the Nantes radio beacon, he tried to reduce speed. If any fault seems to lie at the feet of that pilot, it is his failure to ask for permission to fly a racetrack earlier. But only three minutes out from the beacon was he convinced that he could not lose the time required, so he called air traffic control and asked for permission to fly a racetrack.
At that moment, the air traffic controller, in contravention of normal usage, told the pilot to change radio frequencies. There is some dispute whether the order to change frequencies was to be effective after the beacon had been passed or immediately. Whatever the rights or wrongs may be, the Spantax pilot believed that the order was effective immediately and changed his frequency. For two minutes, from three minutes out from the beacon to one minute out from the beacon, he called twice and asked for permission to fly a racetrack, but got no answer.
One minute out from the beacon he announced, having had no response at all, that he would fly his racetrack or he would be in defiance of the air traffic control order. In accordance with conventional usage, he turned to starboard, in thick cloud and flew straight into the DC9 coming up behind. The DC9 exploded on impact and everybody aboard it was killed. The Spantax airliner was severely damaged in the port wing but it landed at the French military airport at Cognac, and all passengers were saved.
I apologise for going into some detail in the lead-up to the accident, but I want the House to realise that it is clear—and counsel's opinion made it clear—that between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the blame for the accident lies with the French air traffic authorities and only 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. with the Spantax pilot.
The French Government, since March 1973, have persistently refused to allow satisfactory negotiations to get under way.

In my opinion, the French Government stand condemned on two counts. First, article 1384 of the Civil Code in France says that a person
who has charge of a thing
—for example, an air traffic controller in charge of an aeroplane—is strictly liable, without proof of fault, for death or injuries to third parties without limit of liability.
The second reason is that in May 1977 the French Government made an informal offer of 50 per cent. of proved claims, but at that stage no offer was made with regard to interest or costs. That was already some four years after the crash had taken place. Obviously, the costs that the families had incurred at that stage were quite considerable, and the interest due to them arising out of the four-year delay from crash to time of offer was another important factor. Moreover, the French Government said that it would take a long time to work out a final settlement. They referred at that stage to the problem of the elections in France, which were shortly to take place. The offer was never proceeded with.
The question might be asked "Why have no legal proceedings been taken by the relatives of those who were killed in France?" I refer to an article in The Sunday Times of 13 August. Many of these people are very poor. They cannot afford the risks and the costs—and the fact that they might end up in a French court with nothing—involved in taking a French authority to court. The article states:
One widow, who received only an insurance payment of £6,000 for the death of her husband, has been evicted, with her young daughter, from two houses in turn for non-payment of rent. Her lawyer has now lost touch with the family. Another widowed mother of five sons received the same payment "—
that is, £6,000—
and is now forced to rely on supplementary benefits.
Many people—not, I am glad to be able to say, Mrs. Wilson—have been forced to the brink of penury and are not in a position to fight for their rights in a legal form in the French courts.
The Minister has been extremely kind and courteous and has answered very carefully and fully the inquiry I have


put to him, I do not for a moment suggest that his task in this case has been an easy one. I do not want him to think that what I am saying is in any way directed personally against him or his Department. The Department has been extremely courteous and helpful in dealing with my inquiry. I have been following this matter because of my particular interest in it, and my friendship with David Wilson, since I came into the House two and a half years ago. It might be helpful if I were to give the House a few of the most salient features of the negotiations over the past six months.
The Minister wrote a letter to me in August last year in which he said:
I do not think it would be right to put further pressure on the French Government at this stage to give a timetable. We have been assured that the French Treasury Solicitor has been instructed to take steps to co-ordinate negotiations leading to the out-of-court settlement envisaged in the French reply and that the necessary contacts will take place as soon as possible.'
That was on 11 August. On 25 October, the Minister wrote a letter saying:
Our Ambassador in Paris therefore wrote to the French authorities on 13 October to express concern at the apparent lack of progress since July and to inquire how matters now stand. We await the French response to this latest approach.
On 30 November, the Minister again wrote to me saying:
The Embassy in Paris have been pressing for a reply to this letter.
That was the letter of 13 October.
The Ambassador wrote again on 14 November and the matter was raised again with the Quai as recently as 24 November.
That meant that another three or four months had elapsed from the time that the Minister—quite justifiably, no doubt—had said that we should not be putting pressure on the French Government.
On 21 December, the Minister was kind enough to report that the French had agreed to prevent the time bar coming into force. That is to say, so much time had elapsed since the accident that there was a danger that any settlement or court action would be ruled out because of time-barring. I know that the relatives of the victims are grateful to the Foreign Office for what it has achieved in that regard.
On 24 January, some six months after his first letter, the Minister again wrote to me saying:
One of the difficulties is, of course, that the attempts to negotiate an overall settlement covering all the claims means that those claims which are perfectly straight-forward and fully documented are held up as long as information is lacking in respect of some of the other claims. In this connection I understand that some of the British solicitors involved have now said that they should shortly be able to supply the outstanding information required in respect of some of the claims.
I was extremely unhappy with that reply, because part of the French informal offer in May 1977 had required the proving of the quantum—that is to say, the amount that was being claimed by each relative on behalf of each victim—and a great deal of work and effort had been done by the relatives to prove their claims. Indeed, I know that Mrs. Wilson, with the help of her chartered accountants, had to do a great deal of work on her husband's tax returns regarding his previous year's earnings, to say nothing about his financial status, and so on. I understand that a similar process had been followed with regard to the relatives of the other victims.
I found, therefore, that that reply was extremely disappointing. It seemed to be taking us over the ground that had already been covered. It was particularly disappointing because the French Government say that they will not make an offer until a claim has been proved. But why should the families go to the trouble of making their claim clear if they do not know what the French Government's offer will be? It is a circular argument. All that the families suspect is that the higher the total amount of claims becomes, the lower the French Government's offer will be, relatively speaking. Therefore, it is only fair that the families should want to be reassured that the French Government will put an offer on the table. The French Government are then quite entitled to ask those families to provide proof of the claims that they are making. To ask the families to prove the claim before an offer is made seems to be an unsatisfactory way of proceeding.
Some of the questions that have emerged from France in the past six months have not, in my opinion, been of a relevant nature. In his letter, the


Minister referred to the difficulties of co-ordinating the claims. I have here a letter from the Société D'Avocats dated 31 October, addressed to Mrs. Wilson. This letter asks for:
A certificate that the widow Bessie Wilson has not remarried.
I cannot understand why whether Mrs. Wilson has been able to remarry in October 1978 should in any way affect the liability of the French Government to make a payment arising out of the negligence of their military air traffic controllers in March 1973. From my conversations with some of the solicitors, I suspect that many of the questions that have been asked are not of a relevant nature, and, indeed, are designed only to spin out the process of negotiation.
I understand that this issue is an extremely delicate one, but I ask how long the relatives of the victims must wait. There must be a limit. Though I have said nothing publicly for almost two and a half years, I believe that the limit has now been reached. One thing is sure: David Wilson and 45 other British people boarded an airliner in Palma one bright March morning over six years ago, and they for certain had no responsibility for the tragedy that ensued. However, their relatives are the ones who continue to suffer.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister either that a settlement has now been reached and that money will quickly be paid to the relatives, or that Her Majesty's Government intend in future to follow a policy in this matter that is more publicly critical of the French Government and their attitude.

9.5 p.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd ): We are grateful to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) for the way in which he so factually raised this agonising story. I want to make it absolutely clear at the outset that the Government are deeply concerned about the distress that has been caused to a number of British families following this accident.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have shown an interest in the issue. Amongst those prominent in concern immediately spring to mind

the names of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody), as well as of the hon. Member for Walsall, North himself.
On a number of occasions, both I and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade have had a chance to hear these representations on behalf of constituents, and on behalf of those who have dependants who are suffering as a result of the accident. My hon. Friend and I have always appreciated these opportunities because they have enabled us to build up a far better acquaintance with the facts of the whole sad story. We entirely share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the financial hardship and frustration experienced by the relatives of the victims in their attempts to secure full compensation. For a long time, my hon. Friend and I have taken, and continue to take, a close personal interest in this issue. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we remain anxious to do everything we can to help.
The hon. Gentleman sketched out the story. I do not think there is much disagreement about the facts. It is certainly true that on 5 March 1973 there was a mid-air collision over Nantes between two Spanish aircraft—an Iberia DC9 flying from Palma to London and a Spantax Coronado flying from Madrid to London. All seven crew and 61 passengers, 46 of whom were British, on the DC9 were killed when the aircraft broke up and crashed. The Spantax aircraft managed to make an emergency landing, and fortunately the crew and passengers escaped uninjured.
The disaster took place during a strike of the French air traffic controllers, which certainly at the time led to speculation in the French and British media that the military ground controllers, who temporarily took over the jobs, may in some way have been responsible because they were unfamiliar with the civilian equipment and procedure.
The circumstances in which this crash occurred were unusual. It is likely that the responsibility for the disaster is divided. On the basis of the official report of the commission of inquiry, the judge in Nantes was unable to attach blame for criminal negligence exclusively to either the Spantax pilot or the military ground controllers. The consequent decision by


the French authorities that they could not institute criminal proceedings has certainly made it harder for the claimants to pin down who was to blame and to recover compensation.
The hon. Gentleman will recall that Iberia's liability for passengers was limited under the terms of the Warsaw convention, as amended by the Hague protocol, to a maximum of £10,780. We understand that payments were offered to the dependants in fulfilment of this obligation without undue delay. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, relatives are seeking to recover additional sums from the French Government on the ground that the crash was largely caused by negligence on the part of the French air traffic controllers.
The hon. Gentleman may feel that the limit of liability to which I have referred is too low—£10,780. I assure the House that the Government share this view and that British carriers, as a condition of their licence, must contract for at least the equivalent of $58,000. Similar limits are offered by the carriers of many other countries. I understand that Iberia also recently agreed to contract for a higher limit of liability of the same order.
The Embassy in Paris has on repeated occasions emphasised to the French authorities the importance that the British Government attach to the resolution of this longstanding problem, and has pressed for it to be treated as a matter of priority. Hon. Members will know that it was in response to these repeated representations by the Embassy and to a personal approach I made to the French Ambassador that the French conveyed to us on 28 July last year their decision to propose on overall compromise settlement.
The House will, of course, understand that it is for the claimants and their lawyers to decide how to respond to this proposal for an out-of-court settlement and to any offers that may be made in this framework. The alternative is for them to pursue their claims through the appropriate French courts. It would, frankly, be improper for me to offer any comment from this Dispatch Box on what they might decide to do.

Mr. Hodgson: The Minister says that it is up to the claimants to respond to the

offers that have been made. Has an offer been made? I understand that only a broad framework—the suggestion that an offer could be made—has been put forward. No money has been talked about, or any basis of that sort at all.

Mr. Judd: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall deal specifically with that point shortly.
At this juncture, I must remind the House that at this stage there are no official legal grounds whatsoever for the Government themselves to intervene. I can quite understand that the hon. Gentleman and others who are personally exposed to the sadness and distress which has followed the accident may wish that it were otherwise. But that is the position in international law, for international law does not provide for a State to bring a claim against another State for wrongs done to it in the person of its nationals until all local legal remedies have been exhausted, and then—and only then—if there is evidence that the claimants have been denied justice. As no court has yet reached a decision as to liability, the case remains sub judice and we are obliged to allow French legal procedures to take their course.
What we have been doing is repeatedly to urge the French Government to speed up those processes and to follow up their commitment to the principle of an overall compromise settlement by making firm offers. The Embassy in Paris has remained in close contact with the French lawyers acting for the British claimants in the case.
Following the repeated representations to which I have referred, we were told in December last, as the hon. Gentleman has recognised, that the French Treasury Solicitor had completed his study on the basis of the information available and had asked the lawyers for supplementary information to fill certain gaps in the official documents. The French Government reaffirmed their commitment to accept responsibility for their obligations and duties in this matter, in accordance with the principles of French law. They also confirmed earlier assurances that the necessary arrangements had been made to suspend the time-barring of the prosecution—a point made by the hon. Gentleman.
Contacts then took place between the lawyer representing the French Government and lawyers representing the claimants, but when no firm offer was forthcoming from the French, the Ambassador in Paris called again, on 12 January, on the Secretary-General at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on my instructions, to emphasise our increasing concern at the lack of progress.
The Secretary-General promised that he would take up the matter with the then newly-appointed Foreign Minister, M. Francois Poncet. Shortly afterwards, on 29 January—because I was far from satisfied, to put it mildly, with the whole way in which this thing was dragging on—I raised the matter personally with my French ministerial opposite number, M. Bernard-Raymond, during his official visit to London. He assured me that the matter was receiving his personal attention and that he would do all he could to persuade the appropriate authorities to conclude an early settlement.
Only last week, we heard informally that the French Government had made offers to some, but not all, of the British claimants. These offers are under study by the claimants' lawyers. Since we have not been informed of the precise content

of any of them, I cannot say tonight whether they are likely to be thought acceptable.
It will in any case be for the claimants and their legal advisers and not for the British Government to decide whether an offer is acceptable in their case. But I can assure the House that we shall continue to keep a close watch on developments. I am sure that hon. Members will welcome the news of the recent offers as an indication at least of movement in a situation that we all agree has been dragging on for far too long. I hope that the fact that the hon. Member for Walsall, North has tonight so effectively put the case will help the claimants and their lawyers in what they are trying to negotiate.
In conclusion, I should like to repeat the deep sympathy of the Government for the relatives and dependants of those who lost their lives in this disaster. The Government will continue to do all that they can to encourage a speedy settlement of their claims, which will help a little to alleviate the hardship that they have suffered.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Nine o'clock.